f^'jJ^V'. 






red <2 ^p- 






•^ ^^ fee -t; 





















W»* 






;vp^ 



wdfcfe 






* LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



i»»; 









ED STATES OF AI§i6a. 1 






mmm 






MKaJKA^i .' r» c «M"7 



^^nvsi" 









immz 



mm ■■ mm 



wwmmw' r'zww 



- - - - -■- - -» ~Yi 



mm,\, ,. ;jv' 



s^wvWywiW 



* >?'5T".y?»wvv^'y.?;^:< 









^^fwBggSL 



»V»W . "BIB* 









DOCTRINE OF INSPIRATION 

BEINO 

AN INQUIRY 



CONCERNING THE 



INFALLIBILITY, INSPIRATION, AND 
AUTHORITY OF HOLY WRIT, 



BY THE REV. JOHN MACNAUGHT, M.A, OXOK, 

INCUMBENT OF ST. CHKYSOSTOll'S CHURCH, EVERTON, LIVERPOOL. 



£[jiru (SetiiUtm, Hcbiserj anti Cortoicti. 



"Have you seen your uncle's 'Letters on Inspiration/ which I believe are to be pub- 

"lished?" They have since appeared as 'The Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit.' 

" They are well fitted to break ground in the approaches to that momentous question 
" which involves in it so great a shock to existing notions ; the greatest, probably, that 
"has ever been given since the discovery of the falsehood of the doctrine of the Pope's 
" infallibility. Yet it must come, and will end, in spite of the fears and clamours of the 
"weak and bigoted, in the higher exalting and more sure establishing of Christian truth." 
— Letter (Jan. 24, 1835) from the great and good Dr. Arnold, of Mugby, to Mr. Justice Cole- 
ridge. — Stanley's Life of Arnold, p. 317, edit. 6th. 

" If the word Inspiration be taken in such a sense as to include Infallibility, we can scarcely 
"believe that St. Mark and St. Luke were inspired." — Bp. Mars ft' s translation of MicTiaelis" 
Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 96, edit. 1793. 



LONDON: 
LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS. 



1857. 



v % ^ 



LC Control Number 



tmp96 031661 



TO 
ALL RULERS, TEACHERS, AND OTHER THOUGHTFUL PERSONS 

THIS VOLUME 

IS MOST RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED 
BY THEIR HUMBLE SERVANT 



THE AUTHOR. 



PEEFACE TO THE FIEST EDITION. 



By way of preface to this Essay the author has only to say 
that, in the course of a protracted and earnest inquiry, he 
has not found any one hook or teacher to give him a de- 
finite and satisfactory explanation of the very important 
term " Inspiration." There is, in one school of thought, 
much which has been written ably, undeniably, and, no 
doubt, honestly, in opposition to the common idea of In- 
spiration; and there is, in another school of thought, not a 
little which has been written truly, ingeniously, and piously 
in support of the common idea: but few, if any, earnest 
thinkers will call in question the desirableness, not to say 
the necessity, of some simple and self-consistent treatise 
which — while, on the one hand, it shall contain a refuta- 
tion and abandonment of what is untenable in the popular 
notion, and, on the other hand, an assertion and demon- 
stration of the true doctrine of Inspiration — shall at the 
same time vindicate a high reverence for the just authority 
of Holy Writ, and shall show how this reverence for the 
sacred volume is to be reconciled both with the articles of 
existing Creeds, and with the startling facts, bearing on 
Inspiration, which are made apparent by a diligent analysis 
of Scripture itself. 

The object of this Essay is thus to be destructive of pre- 
vailing errors ; to be constructive of a true doctrine of 
inspiration ; to uphold the highest reasonable authority for 



VI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 

Holy Writ ; and to give ease and security, in Christian 
faith, to all piously and honestly disposed minds. 

How far that object has been prosecuted in a becom- 
ing manner, or has been effectually attained, it is for the 
reader to decide ; but, whatever may be the public decision 
on this point, it will ever be a source of happiness to the 
author to feel that he has given expression to his opinions 
candidly, and, to the best of his power, clearly. 

Eveeton, Liverpool, 
March 28, 1856. 



PEEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



In offering to the public a new edition of this work, the 
author takes occasion to make a very few remarks for 
which he requests an indulgent consideration. 

Many friendly and most esteemed readers have regretted 
that the latter or constructive portion of the work had not 
been placed first, so that it might have shown the Essay- 
ist's true and positive faith before his assault was made on 
the prevalent superstitions regarding the Bible. To the 
kindness which has been intended by the expression of 
such regrets, the author attaches a high value : but he is 
still convinced that the order which he originally adopted 
is the true and inevitable one; for, with reference to men's 
reverence for the Bible, as in all other cases of rebuilding, 
the old ruin must be removed before it can be possible to 
rear the new edifice. Besides, if a reader had not patience 
to peruse the whole and compare the parts of a book on 
such a subject as Inspiration, there would, assuredly, be 
little hope of allaying his prejudices by any candid course 
that might be adopted. On these considerations, the general 
plan of this second edition stands as it did in the first; and 
for the entire volume, as made up of several parts, the 
reader's patient investigation is requested. 

To the many Eeviewers, who have criticised and com- 
mended or condemned his work, the author's acknowledg- 
ments are due, and they are cordially rendered. Wherever 



Vlll PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 

a suggestion has been made, by friend or foe, which seemed 
to have any weight in it, he has gladly availed himself 
of its instruction. 

One not unfriendly Reviewer has blamed the Essayist for 
having failed to acknowledge that the champions of Unita- 
rianism had been his pioneers and precursors in the attempt 
to demolish the notion of Inspirational Infallibility. The 
Essayist can only reply, that he is not altogether unac- 
quainted with the published writings of Priestley, Chan- 
ning, Martineau, and other leaders of the Unitarian body; 
and that he was, and still is, wholly ignorant that a sever- 
ance between Inspiration and Infallibility had ever been 
attempted by those writers, or by any others of their school. 
Had he known them to have made such a distinction, he 
would most frankly have pointed it out, and have owned 
that, on the Doctrine of Inspiration, as undoubtedly on 
some other subjects, the Unitarians are entitled to the 
credit of having been leaders of enquiry in modern 
Christendom. 

The author will always remember with heartfelt satisfaction 
the manner in which he has been assisted and encouraged, 
since the appearance of the first edition, by many of his 
friends, as well as by not a few of the clergy and laity, 
previously unknown to him, whose courageous sympathy 
has been awakened by his candid avowal of opinions, and 
by the obloquy with which that candid avowal has been 
assailed. He is far, indeed, from wishing to pledge any 
one to an entire assent and consent to all things contained 
in this volume ; but it is to him a source of unfeigned 
gratification to know that he has the general approbation 
of many who are the chief hope of reasonable religion and 
intelligent theology within the communion of the Esta- 
blished Church ; and, among them, of such men as the 



PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. IX 

Eeverend Professor Jowett, the Eeverend Professor Baden 
Powell, the Reverend Rowland Williams, Fellow of King's 
College, Cambridge, and the Reverend Henry Bristow 
Wilson, late Fellow and Tutor of St. John's College, 
Oxford. 

The sympathy of men like these, and the testimony of a 
good conscience, may well enable the author to endure the 
opposition of the impatient, the prejudiced, and the ill- 
informed. It only remains for him, in these few prefatory 
remarks, to tender his best thanks to the public for the 
readiness with which the whole of the first edition has been 
bought up in less than six months. Perhaps, his best 
mode of showing that he appreciates this favour is that 
which he has adopted, in carefully revising and correcting 
the work, so as to make it more worthy of popular estima- 
tion; and in publishing it in a type no less legible than 
before, while the form of the volume has been so far changed 
as to admit of its being sold at a greatly reduced price. It 
is hoped that the book will thus be placed within the reach 
of a much larger circle of readers, and that its opinions will 
be proportionably disseminated. 

Everto^' October 8, 1856. 



CONTENTS. 



INTRODUCTION. ^ge. 

Sec. 1. — Christ the one foundation, and the human mind with 

its various prepossessions the groundwork - - 1 

Sec. 2. — Keason and Faith in connexion with Keligion generally 

and with Inspiration particularly 1 

Sec. 3. — The effect of confused notions of Inspiration on the 

several classes of society 2 

Sec 4. — The general danger to faith of such confusion, a motive 
for the undertaking of this Essay in the interest 
of Christian belief ------ 4 

Sec 5. — The author's experience of benefit from the views about 

to be propounded ._.,.__ 4 

Sec 6. — The terms "plenary," "verbal," "mechanical," 
" dynamical," "suggestive" and "superintendent," 
not empfoyed in these pages as epithets of Inspi- 
ration - ------ 5 

Sec 7. — The confirming of faith, the removing unbelief, and the 

promotion of charity, are the objects of this Essay 6 

Sec 8. — The arrangement of the work in Five Books - - 8 

Sec 9. — Acknowledged sources whence the materials of this 

Essay have been drawn ----- 8 

Sec 10. — The solemnity of the present Inquiry fully recognized 9 



BOOK I. 

Does the Bible permit us to regard its teaching as Infallible f 

Chap. I. — The inspired Book and its supposed infallibility. 

Sec 1. — Importance of ascertaining the meaning 
of Inspiration as a characteristic of Holy "Writ 10 

Sec 2. — No definition to be found ready to hand 
in Scripture 11 

Sec 3. — Definitions of " Inspiration" in the dic- 
tionaries of Johnson, Kichardson, Bobinson, 
Eden, and Webster - - - - - 11 



PAGE 

Sec. 4. — The signification popularly attached to 
"Inspiration" 13 

Sec 5. — The duty of promulgating clear views on 
this subject ....... 14. 

Sec. 6. — The precise meaning of the term " Infal- 
lible" - 15 

Chaf. II. — Scientific and Historical errors observable in Holy 
Writ. 

Sec 1. — Our investigation will not turn on the 
bearing of modern science on the theories of the 
Scripture- writers - - - - - - 17 

Sec 2. — The genealogies of our Lord - - - 18 
A. — Matthew's account of the genealogy of Jesus 18 

1. What if errors in transcription be acknow- 
ledged? -..-_.. 19 

2. The particular version of the Bible with 
which our inquiry is concerned - - - 20 

3. Unsatisfactoriness of all modes of " explain- 
ing away " difficulties - - - - 22 

B. — Luke's account of the genealogy of Jesus 
compared with that of Matthew - - - 22 
Sec 3. — The residence of the Holy Family - - 24 
Sec 4. — The supposed prophecy "He shall be 
called a Nazarene " - - - - - 26 

Sec 5. — Hosea's words " Out of Egypt have I 
called my son" ------ 28 

Sec 6. — Comparison of the two narratives of the 
temptation of Christ -• - - - - - 28 

Sec 7. — Frequent discrepancies in recording the 
words said to have been spoken or written on 
any given occasion ----•• 30 

A. — Example of such discrepancies in the super- 
scription of the Cross - - 30 
B. — Example of such discrepancies in Peter's 

denials - - - • - - . - - 31 

C. — The census by David, the purchase of Acel- 
dama, the hour of the crucifixion, the num- 
bers of the plague - stricken, are further 
illustrations of such inaccuracy - - - 33 
Sec 8. — The people, learned and unlearned, are 
noticing these discrepancies - - - - 35 

Chap. III. — The existence of such Scriptural Errors recognised 
by the learned and the pious. 

Sec 1. — Forced harmonies abandoned and the 
truth confessed ------ 36 

Sec 2. — The opinions of several learned and 
eminent divines - - - - - - 36 

A. — The opinion of ISTeander - - - 36 

B. — The opinion of Bishop Burnet - - - 37 
C. — The opinion of Professor Tholuck - - 38 



D. — The opinion of Bishop Hinds, (Norwich) - 38 

E.— -The opinion of Archhp. Whately, (Dublin) 39 

F. — The opinion of another English Bishop - 40 

G- — The opinion of Bp. Hampden, (Hereford) 41 
Sec. 3. — These writers own to Scriptural errors 

in everything except Beligion - - - 43 

Chap. IV. — Are there no religious errors in Holy "Writ ? - 45 
Sec. 1. — Does the Bible permit us to regard its 

religious teaching as infallible ? - 45 

A. — The history of Jael - - - - 45 
B. — Some of the imprecations of Jeremiah, 

the Psalmists, and Paul - - - - 46 
C. — The Jewish, belief or disbelief of man's 

life in a future world - - - - - 47 
D. — The Apostolic belief as to the time of 

Christ's Second Coming to judge the world 50 
E. — Paul's argument in 1 Cor. xv. 19, 32 - - 55 
Sec. 2. — The conclusion an answer to the ques- 
tion of this Book - - - 56 



BOOK II. 

What reason is therefor expecting the Bible to be Infallible? 

Introduction. — The self-consistency of truth in its bearings on 

this queston -------- 58 

Chap. I. — Examination of the argument from Miracles for 

Inspirational Infallibility - - - - - 60 

Chap. II. — Examination of the argument from Prophecy - - 62 
Chap. III. — Examination of the argument from the Authority 

claimed for Scripture by the New Testament writers 65 
A. — The opinion of the Jews on this subject - 66 
B. — The opinion of the Evangelists - - - 66 
C. — Alleged utterances of Jesus on this subject 67 
Chap. IV. — Argument in favour of Inspirational Infallibility 
from the supposed impossibility of Scripture Wri- 
' ters ascertaining, by natural means, many particu- 
lars of which they treat - - - - 76 

A.— Evangelists recording scenes at which they 
were not present - - - - - - 77 

B. — Genesis describing creation antecedent to 
man's existence - - - - - 79 

Chap. V Argument for Inspirational Infallibility from the ex- 
cellence and effectiveness of Holy Writ - - - 82 
Chap. VI. — Argument for Inspirational Infallibility from Scrip- 
tural Canonicity -------- 85 



PAGE. 

A. — The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha 85 
B.— The New Testament Canon ... 90 

Chap. VII. — The promises by which our Lord is supposed to have 
guaranteed the Inspirational Infallibility of the New 
Testament _.----__ 94 

Chap. VIII. — The argument for Scriptural Infallibility drawn from 

the supposed nature of Divine Inspiration - -105 

Chap. IX. — The a priori argument for Inspirational Infallibility 108 

Chap.X. — The a posteriori argument for Inspirational Infallibility 110 

Chap. XI. — Besume and Conclusion- -Answer to the question of 

this Book, and outline of the method to be employed 

in the two succeeding Books 113 



BOOK III. 

What is the True Meaning of the The Term " 

Chap. I. — Preliminary observations - - - - - - 116 

Sec. 1. — The idea of "Inspiration," but not the 
word, is in Scripture - - - - - -116 

Sec. 2. — The vague application of the terms " Ghost," 
" Spirit," and their equivalents in the Greek and 
in the Hebrew ------- 117 

Chap. II. — Use of the terms "Buach" (Spirit) and "Neshamah" 

(Breath) in the Old Testament - - - - 120 

Chap. Ill Use of " Pneuma" (Spirit) in the New Testament - 127 

The difference between " Genius" and "Inspiration" 132 

Chap. TV. — The use of the word Inspiration in its true and ancient 

sense among the Churches of Christendom - - 134 
Definition of the term " Inspiration" - - -136 



BOOK IV. 

What is the Just Authority of Holy Writ f 

Chap. I. — Introductory matter. 

Sec. 1. — The present position of our argument - 137 

Sec 2. — Eeactionary disrespect of the Bible to be 
eschewed ...---.- 138 

Sec 3 Only when intelligently comprehended 

can the most hallowed precepts be to us God's 

Word 139 

Chap. II. — Special considerations urging to a study of the Bible 

as a most interesting and important document - 140 



PAGE 

A.— The Bible's antiquity combined with its 

present bold on tbe minds of men - - - 140 
B. — Tbe Bible tbe only Book which through 
the ages of the Reformation, the Schoolmen, 
and the Fathers, is pointed back to as inform- 
ing us of the nature, origin, and growth of 

primitive Christianity 141 

Chap. III. — Special considerations urging to a study of the 
Bible as a Book of venerable authority and as a 

rule of Faith - 153 

A. — The Bible to be revered as the handmaid of 
all great modern improvements - - - 153 

1. of German, English and Scotch progress 
as contrasted with Spanish and Italian 
retrogression - 153 

2. of the English as contrasted with the 
French Be volution 156 

3. of the charitable and missionary enter- 
prises of the half century - - - 159 

On these grounds Scriptural authority is main- 
tainable - - 161 

If Infallibility be claimed, authority is insecure 161 
Too probable course of a student misled by 

errors in a supposed infallible Book - - 163 
Recognition of Scriptural fallibility the stu- 
dent's only safe course - - - - 165 
B. — Argument for the authority of Holy Writ 
from its being equal, at least, to the best excel- 
lences of the most civilized Heathen Beligion 166 
C. — Argument for the high authority of Scripture 
from its having excellences which contrast 
with the faults even of a Socrates - - 170 
D. — Argument for the sacred authority of the 
Bible from its great and often unique excel- 
lences - - 176 

Sec. 1. — Is it fair to point to the excellences 
and not to display the alleged faults of 
the Sacred Volume ? - - - -.176 
Sec. 2. — The first characteristic excellence 
of the Bible is its inculcating the prac- 
tice of Eclecticism - 178 

Sec. 3 Again, the Bible teaches that God 

is everywhere energizing - - - 180 
Sec. 4. — The Bible emphatically teaches 

that " God is Love" - 181 

Sec. 5. — The Bible teaches in the way of 
concrete exemplification rather than by 
the statement of abstract principles - 182 
Sec. 6 The Bible prescribes not the Revo- 
lution of outward violence, but a silent 
and sure reform from within outwards - 184 



PAGE. 

Sec. 7. — The Bible requires from each man 
change of mind which shall be effective 
of change of life ----- 185 

Sec. 8. — The consummate knowledge of 
man and of the world shown by the 
Bible Writers - - - - - 187 

Sec 9. — The Bible teaches the universal 
Brotherhood of man - . - - 188 

Sec. 10 — The Bible represents man's po- 
tentiality of good as dependent on God, 
indeed, but also as illimitable for all men 189 

Sec. 11. — The Bible handles, with singular 
wisdom, the difficult subject of Prayer - 190 

Sec 12. — The Bible teaching as regards 
spiritual Communion with God - - 192 

Chap. IV Kesume and conclusion of this Book, claiming a sacred 

authority for the Bible as a fallible but inspired 
Volume. -_.-..-- 195 



BOOK V. 

Bearing of our Opinions on Christian Believers and Christian 

Ministers. 

Chap. I. — These views not incompatible with intelligent (so- 
called) Orthodoxy. 

Sec 1. — What, in these remarks, belongs to the 

clergy applies a, fortiori to the laity - - 198 
Sec 2. — One, holding our views of Inspiration, 

may well believe in the Trinity - - - 199 

Sec 3. — To believe the morally contradictory as 
impossible as to believe the physically con- 
tradictory - - - - - - - 200 

Chap. II. — General considerations for the ministers of any deno- 
mination -------- 202 

A. — We do not deny the Inspiration of the 
Bible - - - - - - - - 202 

B. — Jesus would not dissent though he differed 203 
Chap. TIL — Special considerations applying to the clergy of the 

Established Church of England - - - - 205 

A. — We are not touched by the Law ,against 
Blasphemy - - - - - - - 205 

B. — The Act of Uniformity condemns us not - 205 
C— In the Book of Common Prayer, neither the 
Creeds, the Ordinal, the Liturgy, nor the Thirty 
Nine Articles are opposed to us - - - 206 

Chap. IV. — General Kecapitulation and Conclusion - - - 214 



INTRODUCTION. 



Section 1. — Christ the One foundation, and the Human Mind, 

with its various Prepossessions, the Groundwork. 
" Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which 
" is Jesus Christ ;" but the "foundation" itself must rest on . 
the ground, and be surrounded by groundworks. The natural 
mind of man, and its various learnings and prejudices, are the 
ground and the groundwork in which gospel truth, or the 
love of the Lord Jesus Christ is laid. 

The human mind is always generically the same ; but 
its prepossessions are too numerous and too various to be 
counted. Thus, though there is and can be, in our judgment, 
only one foundation or chief corner-stone — the adorable 
Eedeemer of all mankind — there are many and various 
groundworks which may lie under and around that one founda- 
tion. 

Some of these groundworks are, like sand, lacking in power 
and solidity to sustain the mighty edifice of Christian sancti- 
fication; and so it comes to pass, too frequently, that men 
who did run well fail in their course and make shipwreck of 
both faith and goodness. 



Section 2. — Reason and Faith in connexion with Religion 

generally, and with Inspiration particularly. 

The writer of these pages is fully convinced, that amongst 

other causes which operate as hindrances to Christian life, 

joy, and perseverance, one of the chief is that — if, in this 

B 



2 INTRODUCTION. 

nineteenth century, we are not substituting a Book in the 
place of the Lord, who is the one and only foundation — we 
are, many of us at all events, loosening and weakening the 
ground on which the foundation is to be laid, by such false 
notions about the Inspiration of the Bible, as tend surely, 
though in some cases gradually, to overwhelm or overthrow 
the great temple of the Holy Ghost, which is the Christian 
man. Thus, if, as is constantly and avowedly done, the mind 
of man be prepared for receiving the Christian religion by an 
assertion, that in religion, and especially in the matter of 
inspiration, Keason and Faith must not be expected to har- 
monize, but the former must be subject to the latter, then 
what result is more probable than that Eeason, which is the 
Word [logos) of God within man, will one day make its mighty 
voice to be heard in spite of Faith, which, at the best, has 
only to do with a word of God, not within man, but from 
without ? 



Section 3. — The Effect of Confused Notions of Inspiration on 
the several Classes of Society. 

Accordingly it is daily seen, that, as we base the claims 
of Christianity on a theory of Inspiration which Faith is 
taught to grasp independently of the inherent difficulties or 
impossibilities against which Eeason from the first protests, 
so Christianity loses its hold on the several classes of our 
countrymen. One class, the multitudes of our population, 
without knowing why, cast away the intimate and effective 
principles of a religion which is falsely represented as contrary 
to common sense, that is, contrary to reason in the masses. 
Another class, the men of educated and logical rather than 
religious minds, throw away all Church communion with a 
system that makes Christianity contradict science and history, 
and sometimes even sets the Bible in opposition against 
morality and religion ; and so the Church loses a younger 
Newman, a Theodore Parker, and countless others, of worth 
perhaps as great, but names less known. A third class, the 
educated minds in which logic and piety are both strong, 
enamoured of their childhood's idea of Inspiration and logically 
following out that idea or else dreading to cast away, or rather 
to lose , that childhood's notion of Faith as opposed to Reason, 



INTRODUCTION. 3 

leave the more humane and manly brotherhoods of Christianity, 
and seek a hiding-place, from dread self-contradiction and 
manifest inconsistency, in that emasculated portion of the 
Church, where the popular doctrine of Inspiration is secured 
by being intrenched in the enormous additional ideas of infal- 
lible guardianship and infallible interpretation for the Bible ; 
and thus the elder Newman, Ward, Maskell, Wilberforce, and, 
more than all, Manning, are now — now in this nineteenth 
century — -buried alive in an effete medieevalisni. 

Three such classes are thus lost to living, thoughtful 
Church communion. Two other classes remain. There are 
a few — it seems a very few, but no man can tell how 
many — who have, in manhood, cast off childhood's dream of 
Inspiration, and are revelling in the holy joy of a useful, 
believing life, not according to the letter which killeth, 
but according to the spirit which giveth life. These men 
have got away from theories of Inspiration, and the logical 
consequences of such theories. They are busy — -joyfully, 
thankfully busy — in the work of hallowing themselves in 
Christ, and striving to hallow others by that blessed name. 
In the meanwhile, until some unexpected observation or re- 
flection draw forth their latent scepticism, it is well for 
them ; but they have not mastered the subject of Inspira- 
tion. They have only, as appears by the absence of all 
clear teaching and writing on this topic, abandoned its in- 
vestigation as alarming and to all appearance hopeless. 
>. The other class, the orthodox commonplace men of stifled 
doubts or unsuspecting credulity, hold stoutly by their infant 
teaching. In some things they have become the man ; but 
they have not wholly put away childish things. They are 
still combating with windmills. They contend against the 
supposition of Season's supremacy over Faith, while they 
assert the right of private judgment which cannot be main- 
tained without the acknowledgment of that very supremacy. 
They assert that God has, by Inspiration, freed Scripture 
from all error ; and then, the next moment, they cannot fail 
to see the appearance of error in the Bible, and so they en- 
gage themselves in fencing with the Bible's words. Thus 
a large party of Churchmen have their energies chilled by 
the inhuman conflict between Eeason and Faith; and, from 
their lists, ever and again, some weary soul is fain to leave 
"word-fighting," and go to the unbelief which is Deism, 



4 INTRODUCTION. 

or to the credulity which is Roman Catholicism. On all 
sides it will be found that every party question — and their 
name is legion — resolves itself into the inquiry, Where is 
Infallibility? or, which is the same thing, Where is child- 
hood's notion of Inspiration? 

We believe that if any man can answer this question, his 
mind is likely to receive, to sustain, and to build upon the 
one foundation. We believe that, if any man cannot clearly 
and intelligibly answer this question, his faith, however 
orthodox it may be, is in peril every moment ; for let him, at 
any time, discover one of the many flaws in his theory of 
Inspiration, and all his system is only too likely to fall in 
ruins with the giving way of this his theological groundwork. 



Section 4. — TJie General Danger to Faith of such Confusion, 
a Motive for the undertaking of this Essay in the Interest of 
Christian Belief. 

Under this conviction, and believing, in all humility, that 
we see our way clearly to the answer of this all-important 
question, we have laid down our opinions and their reasons in 
the following pages. 

In the course of our investigation some few of the well- 
known difficulties and discrepancies of Scripture must be 
exposed. They will in no case be intentionally treated with 
anything but the most reverential spirit. The existence of 
such difficulties is, in no sense, chargeable on us or on any 
modern writer. Their exposure is neither so full nor so 
detailed in this volume as in many a work on the Christian 
evidences. And, indeed, the discrepancies referred to in our 
pages are, for the most part, so obvious that they can scarcely 
have failed to strike any intelligent youth who has read the 
Bible twice through, and is ordinarily acquainted with religion. 
On these considerations we shall hardly be accused, with any 
justice, of making a display of Biblical difficulties. 



Section 5. — The Author's Experience of Benefit from the 

Views about to be Propounded. 
The views and opinions we are about to advance and vin- 
dicate are often summarily condemned as "infidelity." As a 



INTRODUCTION. . D 

demurrer against this condemnation, and as an encouragement 
to those who may be already perplexed by a partial or super- 
ficial examination of the doctrine of Inspiration, the writer 
takes this opportunity of avowing that he himself has, in times 
past, tried to hold and to uphold the theory which is commonly 
known as that of verbal Inspiration. He has tried this, and 
various modifications of this. He at one time believed — in 
common with the majority of his contemporaries — that to 
abandon the infallibility of Scripture was the same as aban- 
doning its inspiration; and that such an abandonment was 
inconsistent with the vows of a clergyman, if not with the 
faith of a Christian. Under this conviction he clung, like a 
drowning man, to the high doctrine of Inspiration : but ever 
and again he was tortured by the consciousness that his creed 
and his knowledge were out of harmony. For years he has 
been examining and reflecting on this subject of Inspiration. 
At last — many months since — circumstances induced him to 
commit his thoughts and the result of his reading to paper ; 
and then it was that he discovered the clue by which, for 
himself at all events, this mystery was to be unravelled. The 
following pages are a result of that discovery, and the author 
has thus no hesitation in avowing, that he has been obliged 
to think out for himself the course of thought unfolded in this 
book — that, in the process of his reading and reflecting, he has 
sometimes been on the point of abandoning the Christian faith 
and his clerical position — but that now, having passed through 
this fiery ordeal, whose dread trials none should despise that 
have not known them, his Christian belief and his professional 
and conscientious tranquillity are perfectly undisturbed. 

Thus, let any man faithfully, candidly, patiently go through 
this enquiry concerning Inspiration, and the writer is sanguine 
in the hope that faith, instead of being overthrown, will be 
restored and confirmed ; inasmuch as those props of it which 
were irreconcilable with Eeason, will have been got rid of, 
and Faith and Eeason will have been brought into harmonious 
action for the upholding of Christian truth. 



Section 6. — Several common Epithets of Inspiration not 

employed in these pages. 
It will be observed by the reader, that the ordinary epi- 
thets by which " Plenary " Inspiration is distinguished from 



b INTRODUCTION. 

"Verbal," and "Mechanical" from "Dynamical," are not 
employed in any part of this Essay. Full, or "plenary" 
Inspiration, whether of a book* or of a writer, we regard as 
necessarily synonymous with " verbal " Inspiration ; for we 
know no means, except by the names of things (or words), 
whereby thoughts can be quickened in the mind, or recorded 
in a book.* As to the difference between " mechanical " and 
" dynamical," it is broad enough. If a flute (for example), 
or one of Mr. Babbage's machines, or a dead man, or a man to 
whom the spirit was not subject, were said to be inspired, that 
would be " mechanical " inspiration indeed : but if a living 
man, without the destruction of his individual characteristics, 
be "moved by the Spirit," it can, assuredly, only be by a 
strengthening, or enlarging, or adding to the number of the 
faculties of that livingman — that is, by "dynamical" inspiration. 
Indeed, after all, if the infallibility of the Bible be regarded 
as an effect of the Inspiration of the sacred volume, we see not 
what practical good is attained when we are supposed to have 
learnt that that effect is produced on the general contents 
of the Bible (which is what we presume is meant by the 
advocates of plenary Inspiration), or on its every word, as is 
maintained by the upholders of verbal Inspiration. Or, yet 
again, we are at a loss to imagine what great practical good 
accrues to us when, as an ultimate result of our examining the 
subject of Inspiration, we are supposed to acknowledge the 
manifest truth, that the Spirit operates on man as a rational 
being (dynamically), and not on man as a mere machine 
(mechanically). On such considerations Ave have abstained 
from the use of the^e epithets, just as we also leave unem- 
ployed the fantastic distinctions between the inspiration " of 
suggestion" and that "of superintendence." 

Section 7. — The Confirming of Faith, the Removing Unbelief 
and the Promotion of Charity, are the objects of this Essay. 
It has been already said that the confirming of men in an 

intelligent and reasonable faith is one object at which we aim 

* The writer has re-perused Mr. Maurice's admirable Essay on Inspiration 
since these words were written: and it is to him a source of much satisfaction 
to find that his estimate of the value of these epithets, " verbal" and '• plenary,"' 
coincides with the opinion of Mr. Maurice. Indeed, if it were not for fear of 
involving that reverend and useful author in any blame which may attach to 
these pages, the writer would fain express his belief that the opinions set forth 
in this volume are, to a great extent, in accord with Mr Maurice's views, as only 
too briefly stated in the well-known " Theological Essays." 



INTRODUCTION. 7 

in publisliing this Essay. A kindred object, which, it is be- 
lieved, our pages will tend to effect, has been thus quaintly 
but graphically described by a great writer on the doctrine of 
Inspiration. Leclerc's words are : — " One consequence of our 
" principles is, that hereby at one blow will be solved an 
" infinite number of difficulties, which Libertines" (i.e., Free- 
thinkers) " are wont to allege against the Holy Scripture, and 
" which it is not possible to solve by the ordinary principles. 
" Their mouths will be stopped, and it will no longer avail 
" them to object against Christians the contradictions which 
" are found in the Scriptures ; the lowness of the style of the 
" sacred writers ; the little order observed to be in many of 
u their discourses ; and whatever else they have been used to 
" say against our divines, who have in vain puzzled them- 
li selves to answer them. By imposing nothing upon these 
" men as necessary to be believed, but the Truth of what is 
"most essential in the Histories of the Old and New Testa- 
" ment, and the Divinity of Our Saviour's Doctrine (in which 
" there is nothing that is not conformable to right Reason), 
" they will be brought to acknowledge that Christian Religion 
"is really descended from Heaven; and will be easily inclined 
" to embrace that which hitherto they have obstinately re- 
" jectecl, because it was grounded on suppositions repugnant 
"to that light of Eeason by which they were guided." 

Thus the writer hopes his work will, with the Divine bless- 
ing, be a means of converting the unbeliever, as well as of 
confirming the believer. 

Another object we have in view is the increasing of charity 
among all Christians, who will observe and reflect that those 
verities, which we are apt to regard as dogmatic certainties, 
are, after all, just matters of belief, based respectively on more 
or less rational and firmly-established human opinions. Ob- 
viously, if any men may attain to the infinite so far as to know 
an infallible oracle or guide, it is right that they, who are so 
infallibly enlightened, should dictate to their fallible brethren; 
and hence arises uncharitableness, naturally enough, out of 
the supposed infallibility of knowledge possessed by some 
men. But if, on the other hand, we all can only know in 
part, and not infallibly, then we should all be very humble 
and very patient in the prosecution of knowledge for ourselves, 
and in the endeavour to impart to others what we think we 
know. Hence humility and charity should, and to a certain 



8 INTRODUCTION. 

extent will, arise naturally from the consciousness that God 
alone is to be conceived of as infallible, and that all we and 
ours are more or less fallible. 

Thus, then, it is hoped that our Essay will be a means, 
however small, for the lessening of unbelief, and for the aug- 
menting of faith and charity; and assuredly, in proportion as 
we may succeed in these points, so will there be hope that we 
shall be advancing true and godly obedience to Christ and 
practice of His religion, which are so essential to human hap- 
piness, and which yet are so apt to be forgotten or neglected 
in the heat of controversy, where strong assertion and subtle 
argumentation must too frequently make up for the deficiency 
of light which Reason and Truth can throw on either side of 
the questions from time to time discussed. 



Section 8. — The Arrangement of the Work in Five Books. 
The mode in which we shall carry on our inquiry will be by 
asking first — Does the Bible permit us to regard its teaching 
as infallible'? This will be the subject of our First Book. 
The Second Book will furnish an answer to the question — 
What reason have we for expecting the Bible to be infallible? 
Our next point, in the Third Book, will be to ascertain the 
true meaning of the term " Inspiration." The Fourth Book 
will be occupied with an endeavour to vindicate the just 
authority of Holy Writ. And in our Concluding Book we 
shall endeavour to show the bearing of the preceding pages 
on Christian believers and Christian ministers. 



Section 9. — Acknowledged Sources whence the Materials of this 
Essay have been drawn. 
In these introductory remarks, it only remains that the 
author should make his acknowledgments as to the sources 
whence his opinions are drawn. For the materials the writer 1 
lays no claim to originality ; nor yet can he say that he has 
merely compiled them from other books. He has read Hinds, 
Morell, Henderson, Gaussen, Lee, and many other works, on 
the subject of Inspiration: he has read some of the publications 
of Francis Newman, Froude, Theodore Parker, and others of 
a like school: he has read, and largely profited by, Leelerc's 



INTRODUCTION. \) 

Five Letters on Inspiration, and Coleridge's " Confessions of 
an Inquiring Spirit." These, and many other works bearing 
more or less directly on the subject, he has read, and tried to 
learn from. Some have suggested truth; others have, inten- 
tionally or unintentionally, warned against fallacies ; all and 
each have contributed some light, and to all and each the 
author's thanks are cordially given. Professor Tholuck is 
named twice in the ensuing pages ; and to his articles on 
" Inspirationslehre" the writer is especially indebted. But, 
after all, a careful perusal of the Bible itself, and much painful, 
but ultimately happy and truly remunerative reflection, have 
chiefly led the Essayist to the views now set forth by him. 

In the materials of this book there will be found little, if 
anything, which is new. That which the writer believes to 
be novel, and that, consequently, which induces him to ask 
from the public a perusal of his book, is the combination of a 
tolerable freedom from bias ; a fearless following of premises 
to their conclusions; and, after free inquiry, the candid avowal 
of those modified but distinct opinions regarding Inspiration 
which still remain in the mind of a believer and a clergyman. 
This combination, and the results to which it has led, the 
author believes to be both novel and important; and therefore 
he wishes the utmost possible publicity for his book. 



Section 10. — The Solemnity of the present Inquiry fully 
Recognised. 

A careful judgment of the serious matters, not lightly or 
impiously handled in these pages, is asked from the reader. 
It is feared that there may be some errors in the particulars of 
the Essay ; but, as to the general soundness of the argument, 
the author entertains no doubt whatever ; and he has, there- 
fore, no hesitation in introducing his work to public notice, 
with the devout supplication that God — the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost — may bless this inquiry, to the relief of many 
doubting minds, to the confirmation of every reader's heavenly 
confidence, and to the geneial extension of the kingdom of 
Christ. May the author not write, nor the reader think, aught 
that would be untrue, ungodly, or uncharitable ! 



BOOK I. 

DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD ITS TEACHING 
AS INFALLIBLE? 

CHAPTER 1. 

THE INSPIRED BOOK, AND ITS SUPPOSED INFALLIBILITY. 



Section 1. — Importance of ascertaining the Meaning of Inspira- 
tion as a Characteristic of Holy Writ. 

When a volume is placed in our Lands with the solemn and 
very important information that this Holy Book is the Inspired 
Word of God, and with the further assurance that all its con- 
tents are the whole extant Scriptures which have been given 
by inspiration of God, the question naturally arises in our 
mind — what is the meaning of the verb "inspire," whose 
derivatives, the participial adjective "inspired," and the noun 
"inspiration," are used with such apparent force in these 
religious assertions ? 

The verb and its derivatives are by no means uncommon in 
expressions which, at first sight, seem to have little or no 
connexion with religion. Tims we hear of one man being 
inspired by patriotism, another by awe, and a third by music, 
and the " inspiration of poetry" is by no means a rare phrase. 

Let us not, however, be misled by a premature inquiry into 
the so-called secular or profane meaning of these terms ; but 
let our first inquiry be as to their signification when they 
occur in religious applications. 



DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US, ETC. 11 

Section 2. — No Definition to he found, ready to hand, in 
Scripture. 

The "Inspiration" of Scripture! What is meant by this 
use of the word ? Ultimately we shall endeavour to frame a 
definition of this term by examining the several meanings 
which it bears in the usage of the sacred penmen ; but, in the 
meanwhile, if we seek for a logical answer to our question, it 
will not be found in Holy Writ — at least, not in the form of a 
definition ; for the Bible is written throughout in popular, 
familiar phraseology, and not in the way of any philosophical 
system. One may find many rich and imaginative descrip- 
tions in the Bible, but not a single logical or scientific 
definition. Thus, if we adopt an accurate and idiomatic 
translation of a passage in Paul's second letter to Timothy, 
we may obtain a graphic and impressive account of the 
usefulness of Inspiration in the words — " Every divinely 
" inspired writing" (besides the sanctity which attaches to it 
as originating with God) "is also profitable for instruction, for 
"reproof, for correction, for education in righteousness, in order 
"that the man of God maybe thoroughly fitted for every good 
" work." This is an exquisitely fine description of the uses 
of an inspired writing ; but the passage manifestly fails to tell 
us what is the precise and essential meaning of divine inspira- 
tion, and so fails to be a definition. 



Section 3. — Definitions of "Inspiration" in the Dictionaries of 
Johnson, Richardson, Robinson, Eden, and Webster. 
If, then, in the absence of any Scriptural definition, we 
desire to ascertain the signification of this term, as it is em- 
ployed in our own language with reference to the Bible, the 
most natural method will be to consult a good English Dic- 
tionary. Upon doing this, the great Johnson tells us that, in 
a religious sense, " inspiration" means " the infusion of ideas 
"into the mind by a superior power;" and he quotes from 
Dr. Watts a fuller statement of this definition, regarded from 
the Christian stand-point : " Inspiration is when an over- 
" powering impression of any proposition is made upon the 
" mind by God himself, that gives a convincing and indubit- 
"able evidence of the truth and divinity of it: so were the 
" prophets and apostles inspired" Such were Dr. Johnson's 



12 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

definition and illustration of our word. To the same effect, 
Dr. Kichardson, in his truly scholarlike English Dictionary, 
tells us that the meaning of the verb "inspire," in its religious 
acceptation, is "to give, grant, or bestow, the Spirit; (meta- 
" phorically) to infuse the Spirit; to actuate, guide, or direct 
" by the Spirit; to animate." 

On looking to another class of dictionaries, which are either 
written in the religious interest of parties, or are concerned 
with the modern and now popular meaning of terms, rather 
than with their old English usage like Dr. Richardson, or 
their derivative signification like Johnson, we find Dr. Robin- 
son, in his Theological Dictionary,* defining Inspiration as 
" the conveying of certain extraordinary and supernatural 
" notices and motions to the soul," in such a manner that 
"every inspired writing is free from error, that is, from ma- 
" terial error." Mr. Eden, in his well-known Churchman's 
Theological Dictionary,! defines "Inspiration" as " the breath- 
u ing into the soul of man, by the Holy Ghost, of certain 
"supernatural ideas or emotions;" and he goes on to say that, 
although there have been different opinions as to whether the 
inspiration of Scripture is plenary or limited, the meaning of 
the word, with reference to the Bible, is "the divine dictation 
"of truth to the minds of the sacred writers, whereby they 
" were not only preserved from error, but specifically in- 
" structed to communicate certain truths which God would 
"make known to man." Similarly, Dr. Webster, in his Dic- 
tionary of the English language, defines Inspiration, when 
spoken of the Scripture writers, as " the supernatural influence 
" of the Spirit of God on the human mind, by which prophets, 
" apostles, and sacred writers, were qualified to set forth divine 
"truth without any mixture of error." 

Now, the careful observer of these two classes of definitions 
cannot fail to notice that — whichever of the parties may be 
the more correct in the sense they attach to the word with 
which we are interested — whichever party, Johnson and 
Richardson, on the one hand, or Robinson, Eden, and Webster, 
on the other, may be the more in accordance with truth or 
antiquity — there is a notable difference between their two 
classes of definition ; inasmuch as the latter party put promi- 
nently forward the idea, that protection from all error (or, in 

* Publisher, Longman & Co., London, 1815. 
f Published by J. W. Parker, London, 1845, 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 13 

one word, infallibility) is an essential element in the meaning 
of the term Inspiration as applied to Scripture ; whereas 
Johnson and Eichardson wholly omit to notice any such idea 
as being contained in the word. We are far from implying 
that infallibility was never included in the ideas connoted, as 
logicians would say, by the term Inspiration, until after 
Johnson's time. The Homilies and vast masses of earlier 
literature show the contrary. But we point to this omission 
of infallibility from the definition of Inspiration given in two 
of our best dictionaries as noteworthy ; and we ask, which 
class of the definitions is the best representative of our modern 
popular religious opinion ? 



Section 4. — The Signification popularly attached to 
" Inspiration." 

In answering this question we shall not weary the reader 
with quotations from the numerous modern treatises on 
Inspiration ; but we may refer to the manner in which the 
Bible, as the inspired "Word of God, is constantly used in the 
pulpit, in conversation, and even in the compositions of some 
among our best speakers and writers. However abstruse the 
mooted points of philosophy may be — however there may be 
a large weight of probabilities preponderating against a con- 
clusion — however surrounded by difficulties that conclusion 
may be ; yet, if only the speaker or the writer can bring a 
single passage of Scripture to bear against his adversary's 
position, and in favour of his own, he knows that his point is 
gained. He will have carried conviction to the minds of most 
of his hearers ; and, if he be a religions man, he will in all 
probability himself believe that there is no further room for 
doubt : his mind, like that of his audience, has parodied and 
adopted the ancient tyrannical watchword of the Church — The 
Bible has spoken, and the case is settled. 

What can support this practice of proving the improbable 
by a text, except the general belief that every verse — yea, 
every word, in the Bible is infallible ? If, in an argument, we ' 
should rely solely on a quotation from Locke, or Aristotle, or 
Cicero, or the Institutes of Justinian, we should be required to 
prove that the alleged dictum of these or any other wise but 
fallible men, was an instance in which they wrote wisely, and 



14 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT CS TO REGARD 

was not one of the numerous errors into wliich all men have 
fallen. But it is not so in quoting Scripture. Make it appear 
that a text applies to your case, and that one text will save 
you all further trouble ; because your adversary and your 
audience are not prepared to avow that they doubt the infal- 
libility of the inspired volume. This state of things is too 
notorious to require farther argument. Eightly or wrongly, 
the popular mind regards infallibility as a conspicuous and 
essential element in the idea of Inspiration. 



Section 5. — The Duty of promulgating Clear Views on 
this Subject. 

Now, we believe Inspiration, and especially the Inspiration 
of the Bible, to be so holy and so true a thing, that we are 
most anxious to state for others as clearly as, by God's help, 
we have been able to ascertain for ourselves, what is the real 
and uncorrupted meaning of this very important term; which, 
though of so common occurrence, is yet, as we humbly think, 
a term but little understood and grievously misinterpreted. 

We have already seen that the ordinary belief of English- 
men connects infallibility with Scriptural inspiration. If this 
belief be well founded, it is evident that the Bible, as an 
inspired volume, ought to be infallible. If the Bible be not 
infallible, and if yet it be, as we believe it is, divinely inspired, 
then evidently infallibility can form no essential part of the 
true idea of Inspiration. To the examination of the question, 
then, Does the Bible permit us to regard its teaching as 
infallible ? the remaining part of this Book will be devoted. 
We shall discuss this question carefully and candidly. There 
will be parts of oiir argument that can hardly fail to suqjrise, 
and, we fear, to grieve the majority of our readers ; but still, 
truth, and, above all, truth in religious matters, though it 
should be spoken in love, must not be suppressed for fear of 
man's displeasure, or in order to avoid giving salutary pain. 
If we see important truth clearly, which we conscientiously 
believe our neighbours either do not see at all, or see so dimly 
' that they lose the benefit that ensues from the living energy 
of truth clearly understood and felt, it is our bounden duty — 
as men and Christians, not to say as ministers of God — to tell 
forth plainly and boldly that which has done us good, and 
made us happier followers of the crucified and risen One. 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 15 

It is under the persuasion that we see, and can help in 
showing others, most blessed and profitable Christian truth 
respecting the Inspiration of Holy Writ, that we have under- 
taken, and will unhesitatingly cany through our present 
inquiry — Does the Bible permit us to regard its teaching as 
infallible — that is, as being free from all error ? 



Section 6. — The precise meaning of the term Infallible. 
Let us be distinct as to the employment of this word 
"infalKble." We do not use the term captiously or over- 
strainedly. We shall not call the Bible fallible because it 
contains a correct statement of the errors of men whom it 
represents as fallible ; or a true record of the evil designs 
which were in the minds of wicked spirits, human or super- 
human ; though we cannot refrain from remarking here, 
that the observation of this truth should make those readers 
very careful, who are accustomed to quote Bible words as 
settling any question, lest they should use the words of Satan, 
or some evil spirit or wicked man, and think that they are 
using the words of the Most High. It is, however, in no 
narrow sense like this that we shall ask whether Inspiration 
has made the Bible infallible. But, on the other hand, we use 
this term " infallible ' ' in no lax and trifling sense. We use 
it — indeed, we have already used it — and we have shown that 
lexicographers and the people use it — definitely and precisely 
as equivalent to " free from all error," having no admixture 
of error. This is the popular acceptation of the word; and 
this is, necessarily, the only meaning that the word can admit 
of : for if you say of man that he is fallible, you mean that he 
is liable to one or more errors ; but if you say of man that he 
is infallible, you mean that he is not fallible, or not liable to 
any single error. This universality of meaning is inseparable 
from every negative term like that which we are now con- 
sidering. Thus, it would be incorrect and untrue to say of a 
man who had once, and only once, been worsted in battle, that 
he was invincible ; or to say of a man who had committed one, 
and only one, sin, that he was impeccable ; or to say of a man 
who had even once acted unjustly for a bribe, that he was 
incorruptible. Similarly, if a book consisting of a million pages 
had in it only one single error, you might say of that book 



16 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

that it was wonderfully free from errors, or amazingly correct ; 
but it would be an improper and inadmissible use of language, 
to say that it was infallible, or wholly free from error. Such 
is, unquestionably, the true meaning of this term. 

In dealing with Scripture, however, we shall rest our alle- 
gation on no solitary passage, but on a tolerably broad collec- 
tion of passages : only it is well that we should understand, 
at the outset, that there may be such a comparison as more or 
less fallible ; but there can rightly be no such comparison as 
more or less infallible. A thing must be either wholly free 
from error, and then it is infallible ; or it must be marked by 
one or more errors, and then it is fallible. Our present 
question then, is, Does the Bible permit us to believe that 
its teaching is infallible ? that is, that in all which it states 
without disapprobation there is no error whatever ? 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 17 

CHAPTER II. 

SCIENTIFIC AND HISTORICAL ERRORS OBSERVABLE IN HOLY WRIT. 



And now to our task. As did the noble Bereans of old, so let 
us search the Scriptures, to see if these things, which are told 
us about the infallibility that is in the Bible, because of its 
Inspiration, be really so. 



Section 1. — Our Investigation will not turn on the Bearing of 
Modern Science on the Theories of the Scripture-writers. 
We are not about to lay the chief stress of our argument on 
the fact, that geology contradicts the account of creation's 
history as given in Genesis. The establishing of our conclu- 
sions will not depend on the fact, that astronomy forbids our 
believing the earth to be surrounded by a transparent but solid 
case, (called "rakia"* in the Hebrew, "stereoma" in the Sep- 
tuagint, "^rm-ament" in the English,) in which the Snn and 
Moon and Stars are " set," by which the waters above the 
firmament are separated from the waters under the firmament, 
and in which there are windows by whose opening the world 
was once deluged. We shall not rest our argument on the 
truth, that geography is sorely puzzled to comprehend how a 
deluge, which is supposed to have transformed the whole face 
of our planet, so that its old ocean beds became its mountain 
tops, can have left the well-known river Euphrates to flow on 
in its accustomed course, as it had done in the days of Adam 
and of Paradise. Nor is it because there is no mechanical or 
physical ingenuity which can make the apparently non-mi - 
raculoust history of the Ark, containing its alleged inhabi- 

* Vid. Gesenius' Heb. Lexicon, 
•f We apply the epithet " non-miraculcms," cf course, not to the whole history 
of the Noachic deluge, but simply to the one portion of it in which the narrator 
shows no sign of surprise while he informs us that duplicate specimens of all the 
terrestrial animals, and their provisions, were, during many months, accommo- 
dated in a roofed vessel 300 cubits (451) feet) long, 50 cubits (75 feet) broad, and 
SO cubits (45 feet) high. The ventilation was provided for by one window, and 
that, apparently, a cubit, or eighteen inches square ! 

c 



18 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

tants, possible, that we shall be prepared to avow our beliel 
that the Bible does not permit us to regard its teaching as 
infallible. We shall not attempt to obtain an answer to our 
question out of these and numerous similar discrepancies be- 
tween science and Scripture ; because it might be said that 
science is as yet only in its infancy, and we therefore know 
not what its ultimate decisions may be. Besides, we our- 
selves, and the majority of our readers, would not be com- 
petent judges of the scientific principles involved in such a 
comparison of the Bible with the ascertained facts and laws of 
nature. The course of our investigation will be far simpler, 
and will be such that any attentive reader of the most ordinary 
intelligence can understand it, and can hardly fail in forming 
a right judgment of the case. Our references will be chiefly 
to the New Testament, where the history is tolerably familiar 
to every reader, and where the original language (the Greek) 
is known by multitudes. In comparatively few cases, and 
those sufficiently strong and intelligible, shall we have occa- 
sion to refer to the Less familiar pages of the Old Testament, 
in which the original language is known to very few 
scholars, and well-known to hardly any on account of the 
paucity of extant Hebrew books* wherein to observe the 
usages of many important Old Testament words. 



Section 2. — The Genealogies of our Lord. 
A. — Matthew's Account of the Genealogy of Jescs. 

On opening the New Testament, we are met on the first 
page by the assertion that "all the generations from Abraham 
" to David are fourteen generations, and from David until the 
" carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations, and 
" from the caiTying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen 
" generations." 

Now, let us not be told, by those who wish to uphold the 

* By " Hebrew books" we do not refer to Rabbinical literature, of which there 
is an abundance; but we refer to the small number of books written in the idiom 
and dialect of the Old Testament writers. How little we should know of Greek 
if the only extant works in that language were ^Eschylus, Sophocles, Xenophon, 
and Thucydides, with a vast mass of the corrupt Romaic or modern Greek ! Yet 
such is a not unfair measure of ail we know of the Old Testament language. 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 



]9 



doctrine of the Bible's freedom from all error, that a Scripture 
genealogy is hut a small and insignificant matter with which 
to occupy the reader's time and attention : for thus to speak 
of a genealogy would surely be not only to abandon the in* 
fallibility, but even to question the wisdom of those sacred 
penmen who often fill up whole pages of their compositions 
with Hebrew pedigrees ; and who, in some instances, have 
repeated more than once pedigrees which, as they profess to 
be of one and the same person, and traced through the same 
line, should be, what indeed they sometimes are not, identical. 
If, then, we compare Matthew's assertion, quoted above, 
with the genealogy of Jesus as given by Matthew himself, the 
case stands thus : — 

1. Salathiel. 

2. Zorobabel, 

3. Abiud, 

4. Eliakim, 

5. Azor. 

6. Sadoc. 

7. Achim. 

8. Eliud. 

9. Eleazar, 

10. Matthan, 

11. Jacob 

12. Joseph, 

13. Jesus. 
14. 

Obviously, in this last column, where Matthew says there 
should be fourteen generations, there are only thirteen. 
Every man will say there is some mistake. Is the mistake 
in our recounting of the names? Let the reader compare 
these pages with his Bible. If we alter our mode of counting, 
and place Jechonias at the head of the third column as well 
as at the bottom of the second, then we must similarly place 
David at the head of the second column as well as at the 
bottom of the first ; and thus we shall vary the incorrectness, 
by producing fourteen generations in the third column, and 
fifteen instead of fourteen, as Matthew says, in the second. 



1. Abram. 


1, Solomon. 


2. Isaac. 


2. Koboam, 


3. Jacob. 


3. Abia. 


4, Judas. 


4. Asa. 


5. Phares. 


5. Josapbat. 


6. Esrom. 


6. Joram. 


7. Aram. 


7. Ozias. 


8. Aminadab. 


8. Joatham. 


9. Naasson. 


9, Acbaz. 


10. Salmon. 


10. Ezekias. 


11. Booz. 


11. Manasses. 


12. Obed. 


12. Amon, 


13. Jesse. 


13. Josias, 


14. David. 


14, Jechonias. 



6 



Ahaziah, 

Joash. 

Amaziah, 



1. Wliat if Errors in Transcription he acknowledged? 
Here, however, we may be met by the supposition that, in 
the course of frequent transcriptions, the manuscripts may 
have been marred, and so one name may have been lost from 



20 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

what should be the third column of fourteen generations. 
Such a slight corruption of the manuscripts and such an 
omission is, we think, a most reasonable mode of accounting 
for this discrepancy ; but then, let it be at once fairly stated, 
that if obvious errors are to be acknowledged as being in 
Scripture, and their existence is to be accounted for by sup- 
posing that the manuscripts have been corrupted, this is to 
admit that, whether there ever was or was not such a thing 
as an infallibly-inspired Bible, we at all events have no such 
book at the present day ; and therefore we cannot tell how 
nearly the same as, or how widely different from, the imagi- 
nary infallible original our modern Scriptures may be. 



2. The particular Version of the Bible with which our Inquiry is 
concerned. 

The subject of corrupted manuscripts, however, suggests 
the necessity of our settling what edition, version, or trans- 
lation of the Bible it is with reference to which we are asking 
and trying to answer the question — Does the Bible permit us 
to believe its teaching infallible, or free from all error ? 

This, surely, cannot be a difficult matter. For the purposes 
of our argument it is indifferent which edition or translation 
might be adopted ; but some one Bible must be chosen, or we 
may be told that there is somewhere a various reading of any 
passage concerning which we may be arguing. We believe that 
every point we shall advance in this Book might be maintained 
with reference to any published edition or translation of the 
Hebrew Old Testament, or the Greek New Testament; but since 
it is desirable in any argument, and necessary in one that pro- 
fesses to address itself to the populace, to be perfectly definite 
in the use of terms, let us say of what Bible we now treat. 
When an English preacher clinches an argument by a text 
which he and his audience consider unanswerable, because it is 
drawn from an infallible book, from what Bible is it that he 
quotes? Or when, in popular language, men speak of the in- 
spired and infallible Word of God, to what book is it that they 
allude ? Not, surely, to a volume which we have never seen, or 
which may have been lost centuries ago. If the book in the 
preacher's hand be not itself an infallible authority — if it be 
only a fallible copy of some lost and possibly never-existent 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 21 

infallible original — are we wise in submitting our reason to its 
dogma? Nay, more, has the preacher any right to bind his 
fellow-creatures with its perhaps only human and erroneous 
precepts ? How do we know, if the book in the preacher's 
hand be confessed as only a fallible copy of a supposed lost 
infallible original, that the very verse which has just been 
quoted, as finally and authoritatively deciding some important 
religious question, be not itself one of the instances in which 
the fallible copy erroneously differs from the true autograph ? 

This is a point which might, if it were necessary, be so 
worked out as by itself to show the impossibility of ascertain- 
ing which is the infallible reading; and, of the infallible 
reading, which is the true translation ; and, so, the impossi- 
bility of proving any modern Bible to be infallible ; but the 
question now before us is merely to what book do intelligent 
Englishmen refer when they speak of the infallible Word of 
God ? and to this question the answer clearly is, the English 
authorized version, subject to a few corrections in its transla- 
tion. Our problem is concerned with the alleged infallibility 
of this inspired volume. We have already noticed one obvious 
inaccuracy in Matthew's genealogy as it is given in this Bible. 
Another observable point in the same genealogy is shown in 
our tabulated view of it. Matthew tells us that Joram begat 
Ozias ; whereas the books of Chronicles and Kings tell us that 
Ozias was the great-great-grandson of Joram, and that between 
these two kings there intervened three additional links in the 
chain of our Lord's ancestry. The common Jewish mode of 
speaking of any ancestor, however remote, as a father, might 
remove this difficulty if Matthew had not been at the pains 
to state, that "all the generations," from David till the cap- 
tivity were "fourteen generations." Here, then is another 
discrepancy in the history of the New Testament which looks 
like an error. 

It is not a little curious, and important as illustrating our 
subject, that, according to the book of Chronicles (2 Chron. 
xxi. 20, xxii. 1, 2), Ahaziah, the youngest son of king Jehoram, 
was two years older than his father ; for Jehoram died aged 
forty years, and, upon his decease, Ahaziah, aged forty-two 
years, began to reign.* 

* Doubtless, the means for correcting this error are contained in 2 Kings viii. 
26 ; but this, of course, does not disprove the existence of a palpable error in the 
scriptural book of Chronicles, 



22 



DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 



3. Unsatisfactoriness of all Modes of Explaining away 
Difficulties. 

We know that there are modes of explaining away these and 
all other discrepancies ; but we feel that they are so thoroughly 
unsatisfactory — not to use a stronger word — that, though they 
may serve as a hiding-place for the doubts of those whose 
conclusions as to Biblical infallibility are foregone, yet they 
are a terrible stumbling-block to those who bring earnest, 
unprejudiced minds to the examination of Scripture. 



B. — Luke's Account of the Genealogy of Jesus compared 

WITH THAT OF MATTHEW. 

But, yet again, before we quit the genealogy of Jesus, it 
should be noticed that Matthew is not the only evangelist 
who furnishes us with the ancestral line of "Joseph the 
"husband of Mary." Luke supplies another genealogy of 
this same "Joseph," who was the reputed father of Jesus. 
We have already given Matthew's genealogy. That of Lake 
is quite worthy of being compared with it, as may be seen in 
the following table : — 



1. Abraham. 


1">. Nathan. 


29. Er. 


43. Maath. 


2, Isaac. 


16. Mattatha. 


30. Klmodam. 


44. Na<rge. 


3. Jacob. 


17. Menan. 


31. Cosam. 


45. Esli. 


4. Juda. 


18. Melea. 


32. Addi. 


46. Xaum. 


5. Phares. 


1'.). Eliakim. 


33. Melchi. 


47. Amos. 


6. Esrom. 


20. Jonan. 


34. Neri 


1>. Mattathias. 


7. Aram. 


21. Joseph. 


35. Salathiel, 


49. Joseph. 


<S. Aminadab. 


22. Juda. 


36. Zorobabel. 


50. Janna. 


9. Xaasson. 


23. Simeon. 


37. Rhesa. 


01. Melchi. 


10. Salmon. 


24. Levi. 


38. Joanna. 


52. Levi, 


11. Booz. 


25. Matthat. 


39. Juda. 


53. Matthat. 


12. Obed. 


26. Jorim. 


40. Joseph. 


54. Heli. 


13. Jesse. 


27. Eliezer. 


41. Semei. 


55. Joseph. 


14. David. 


28. Jose. 


42. Mattathias. 


56. Jesus. 



On the first glance, these genealogies, as given by Matthew 
and Luke, are so evidently different, that it has been the 
ordinary — if not the invariable — practice of Christian har- 
monists and commentators to represent the former evangelist 
as recording the descent of Joseph, whom the Jews would 
recognise as the father of Jesus ; while the latter evangelist 
is said to have given the pedigree of Mary, whom alone the 
Gentiles would acknowledge as being the only earthly parent 
of our Saviour. 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 23 

We will say nothing of the plausibility of this explanation, 
which acknowledges the genealogies to be wholly different, 
and supposes they belong to two persons. Our question must 
rather affect the truthfulness of this mode of explaining away 
the difficulty. Let the reader bear in mind how Matthew 
states that " Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary ; and 
how Luke's words are, " Joseph, which was the son of HeLi," 
and then let any reader say whether it is truthful to allege 
that these different genealogies belong to different individuals. 
Is it not plain that each of them professes to trace the lineal 
descent of one and the same man, Joseph ? If we are still to 
be told, that when Matthew professes to give the descent of 
Joseph he is to be understood as giving the descent of Mary, 
then we simply rejoin that such an explanation is nothing 
more or less than an abandonment of the idea of Inspirational 
Infallibility ; for it represents the Bible as saying one thing 
and meaning another. 

Thus, then, either Inspirational Infallibility must be given 
up at once, or these two genealogies must both be regarded 
as tracing the descent of one and the same man, Joseph, " the 
" husband of Mary, the father," as was supposed, " of Jesus." 

On this latter supposition it is remarkable to find fifty-five 
links between Abraham and Joseph in Luke's narrative, and 
only forty in that of Matthew. It is remarkable to observe, 
that we must suppose Joseph's father to have had two names, 
Heli and Jacob ; and that Matthew and Luke have not only 
employed his different names to designate him, but we must 
likewise suppose that, with the exception of Salathiel and 
Zorobabel, all Joseph's forefathers up to the time of David 
had each two names, and that each evangelist has used a 
different name for every ancestor of Joseph between himself 
and David the king, except in the cases of Salathiel and 
Zorobabel. Indeed, it is still more remarkable that, when we 
come to the time of David, it is manifest that, at least in their 
allusion to that king's sons, the evangelists are not using two 
names for the same individual : but Luke traces down the line 
of Joseph through one son of David, Nathan ;* and Matthew 
through another, Solomon, All this looks very much as if 
either Matthew or Luke, or both, had made some mistake 
about these very diverse-looking genealogies of one man : and 

* 2 Sam. v. 14: " These be the names of those that were born unto David in 
Jerusalem; Shammuah, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, &c, 



24 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

if we found such a state of things in any book, except the 
Bible, we should at once pass it by as an unimportant error. 
In a book, however, which is said to be infallible, or wholly 
free from error, there can be no such thing as an unimportant 
error ; for a single mistake destroys all claim to infallibility, 
though it is far from affecting the credibility or belie vableness 
of the document in which it occurs. Thus we pass from these 
genealogies with our judgment not favourably affected in 
behalf of Inspirational Infallibility. 



Section 3. — The Residence of the Holy Family. 

The next point we shall notice is the residence assigned to 
the family of Joseph at the time of Our Saviour's birth. 
Generally, Matthew represents Bethlehem as the home of 
Joseph and Mary, and Nazareth as a retreat to which they 
were driven by the cruelty of Herod and Archelaus : whereas 
Luke represents Nazareth as the home, and Bethlehem as the 
temporary and very inconvenient abode, of the holy family. 
But if we look more closely into detail, the discrepancies 
between the narratives of Matthew and Luke will stand out still 
more forcibly, for Luke informs us that, when Jesus was forty 
days old, he was taken from Bethlehem to Jerusalem, and 
there, in the temple, as well as among " all them that looked 
"for redemption in Jerusalem/' his praise was sung and 
celebrated by Simeon and Anna just as, even prior to this, the 
shepherds had "made known abroad the saying which was 
u told them concerning this child." Then Luke goes onto 
tell us that, after this glorious visit to Jerusalem — forty days 
after the Virgin had given birth to our Lord — Joseph and his 
wife and her child "returned to Galilee, to their own city 
"Nazareth;" and Jesu's "parents went to Jerusalem every 
"year at the feast of the passover." According to Luke's 
narrative, "the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled 
" with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him ;" but 
nothing which was known to Luke, and which he deemed 
particularly noteworthy, transpired till the well-known visit 
to Jerusalem, when Jesus was twelve years old. 

Now, let the reader compare this narrative Avith that which 
is given by Matthew. " When Jesus was born in Bethlehem," 
magi from the east were led to him and his mother by " his 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 25 

star." " Then Herod," not having been told apparently of the 
fame which the shepherds and Simeon and Anna were giving 
Jesus far and wide among the Jewish multitudes who expected 
Messianic redemption, ascertains from these magi, and from 
the chief priests and scribes, the probable place of Messiah's 
birth, and the utmost range of time within which the won- 
drous child must have been born, according to their observa- 
tion of "his star." Matthew does not tell us how long the 
cruel Herod waited in expectation of the magi bringing him 
certain intelligence of Messiah's abode : but he tells us that, 
before the monarch discovered that the magi were not coming 
to give him the information he so much desired — before Herod 
executed his dreadful massacre of all infants in Bethlehem and 
its neighbourhood, "from two years old and under" — Joseph, 
in obedience to a dream, removed "the young child and his 
"mother by night, and departed into Egypt," whence he did 
not return till Herod was dead : and " when he heard 
" that Archelaus did reign in Judea in the room of his father 
" Herod, he was afraid to go thither ; notwithstanding, being 
" warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of 
" Galilee, and he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth." 
In comparing these histories we will not dwell upon the 
belief in astrology which is evidently mixed up with Matthew's 
narrative ; nor will we deny that there are ingenious, though, 
as we think, most improbable and unsatisfactory, modes of 
reconciling the two accounts of our Saviour's infancy : but we 
would merely point, in the first place, to the utter improbability, 
or rather the moral impossibility, of Herod being at a loss to 
know the when and the where of our Lord's birth and residence, 
while in the very temple among the priests, as well as gener- 
ally throughout Jerusalem, Anna was making Jesus famous 
as the Messiah : and, again, we would point to the difference 
between the regular annual visits to Jerusalem, of which Luke 
tells us, and the dread of Judaea, while Herod and Archelaus 
were governors there, of which we read in Matthew : and yet, 
once more, when did the magi visit Jesus at Bethlehem? 
Was it within the first forty days of his human life ? If so, 
how did his parents venture to take him, at the time of his 
mother's purification, to the temple in Jerusalem, near the 
very fangs of the bloodthirsty Herod ? or, how does Matthew 
represent Joseph as having immediately, in the very night of 
the dream, set out with the young child for Egypt ? But, on 



26 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

the other hand, if the magi came shortly after the forty days 
were past, and after the virgin's legal purification had been 
accomplished, how does it happen that they found Jesus still 
at Bethlehem, when Lnke tells us he was gone to dwell at 
Nazareth ? Or if it should be supposed that, after dwelling 
for a time at Nazareth, the holy family were visited by the 
magi at Bethlehem, on some occasion when they had come up 
(to a place eight miles from Jerusalem) to keep the passover 
— if this supposition be advanced — how can it be reconciled 
with the marks of time by which Matthew denotes the period 
of the magian adoration, which marks of time are given in our 
translation, in the words, "now, ichen Jesus was born in Beth- 
"lehem," &c, and which may be rendered, less idiomatically, 
but with greater veiled exactnoss, "But Jesus having been 
"born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Herod the king, 
"behold, magi from the east were present at Jerusalem, saying, 
"Where is the king of the Jews that has been born?" (i. e., 
just recently born). 

Thus, on each of these three suppositions, and on every 
other that we have seen or can conceive, there arises some 
serious and manifest discrepancy between the narratives of 
these two evangelists. 



Section 4. — The supposed Prophecy. " He shall be called 
a Nazarene." 
But now let us consider for a moment the settlement at 
Nazareth which both the evangelists represent the holy family 
as having ultimately made. Matthew says this abode at 
Nazareth was effected under divine guidance, " that it might 
" be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be 
" called a Nazarene." This is a remarkable passage, for none 
of the prophets do foretell that the Messiah shall, be called a 
Nazarene, so that on this point Matthew on one side, and all 
our Old Testament writers on the other, are at issue ; and this 
has been so thoroughly felt by the commentators, that they 
acknowledge the absence of any such precise prediction as 
that quoted by the evangelist ; but they urge that Matthew's 
meaning was, that the general tone of Messianic prophecy was 
in accordance with Jesus being called a Nazarene, or dweller 
at Nazareth. Having gone as far as this, it is no uncommon 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 27 

thing to find commentators of repute arguing that Samson, and 
Elijah, and others, had been Nazarites, or men with an obliga- 
tion of abstemiousness npon them, and that as such they were 
typical of Christ, who dwelt at Nazareth that he might be 
called a Nazare?2e, and so fulfil the type of their Nazarfehip. 
Surely this mode of " explaining away" the difficulty is too 
absurd to need more than a statement in order that it may 
refute itself by its own folly. Our blessed Lord so entirely 
disowned all Nazariteship that he contrasted himself with the 
Nazarite Baptist in the words, " John came neither eating nor 
" drinking, and they say he hath a devil : the Son of Man 
" came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man glut- 
"tonous and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." 
Other interpreters say, that "Nazarene" was a despicable 
name in our Saviour's time, and that by bearing this title Jesus 
fulfilled the predictions of that scorn which was to be one of 
the characteristics of Messiah. This interpretation is very 
ingenious, and well worthy of consideration ; but, when it has 
been examined, the reader will find that it explains a different 
prophecy from that which Matthew quotes. This explanation 
is to the effect, Jesus was called habitually " a Nazarene" — a 
name of ignominy — and so he fulfilled the prediction, " He is 
"despised and rejected of men; He was despised, and we 
"esteemed him not:" but so did he not fulfil the prophecy, 
"He shall be called a Nazarene," for there is no such pre- 
diction in the whole volume of the prophets. What then ? Is 
it conceivable that Matthew made a mistake in quoting the 
Old Testament? We answer that it is quite obvious that, 
whoever wrote our present Greek " Gospel according to 
Matthew," made a mistake here, just as he manifests either 
want of care or want of knowledge when, in a subsequent part 
of his narrative,* he writes, " Then was fulfilled that which 
"was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took 
" the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, 
" whom they of the children of Israel did value ; and gave 
" them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." Now, 
in the book of Zechariah-j- you may find words somewhat like 
these which Matthew quotes ; but in all the writings of 
Jeremiah, from whom the evangelist declares them to be a 
quotation, the reader will find no such passage. In these 

* Matthew xxvii. 8. f Zechariah xi. 12, 13. 



28 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

verses, then, we see two plain errors in Matthew's gospel; 
and, if there were no other mistake in all the Bible, this onght 
to prevent onr calling Scripture infallible, that is, wholly free 
from all error. 



Section 5. — Hosed 's words, " Out of Egypt have 1 called 
my Son." 

In his second chapter, Matthew says that Jesus dwelt in 
Egypt for a time, " that" {hina in the Greek, which signifies, 
in order that) " it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the 
" Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my 
" son." Now, if the reader will refer to the prophet Hosea,* 
he will find that it is of Israel, and not of Jesus, that this 
prophecy was written ; so that here again, if the grammatical 
meaning of words is to be of any force in their interpretation, 
there is a hopeless discrepancy between Hosea's real utterance, 
and that which Matthew represents him as having uttered. 
Indeed, it is well known to every scholar, and it can hardly 
be denied by any man whose prejudices have not blinded his 
perceptions or robbed him of his honesty, that a large portion 
of the quotations made in the New Testament from the Jewish 
Scriptures, are quoted in a wholly different signification from 
that in which they were originally written. In each of these 
misquotations there is, at least, a grammatical error, such as 
is quite irreconcilable with the idea of Inspirational infalli- 
bility. 

Section 6. — Comparison of the Two Narratives of the 

Temptation of Christ. 
The next point to be noticed by us, is the account of Our 
Lord's temptation, as it stands in two of the Gospel histories. 



1. Matthew says, — " When the 
tempter came to" Jesus, he urged him 
to change the stones into bread. 

2. Matthew says, — " Then the devil 
taketh him up into the holy city" and 
urgeth him to cast himself down from 
a pinnacle of the temple. 

3. Matthew says, — " Again the 
devil taketh him up into an exceeding 
high mountain," and asketh worship 
from him on the condition of universal 
dominion. 



1. Luke says, — "When forty days 
were ended" the devil urged Jesus to 
change stones into bread, 

2. Luke says, — " And the devil, 
taking him up into a high mountain," 
asketh worship from him on the con- 
dition of universal dominion. 

3. Luke says, — "And he brought 
him to Jerusalem, and set him ou a 
pinnacle of the temple," and urged him 
to cast himself down. 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 



29 



Now, it is obvious that the last of the three temptations in 
Matthew's history is the second in Luke's history. Both of 
these arrangements cannot be right. How may we know 
which is the true order of the temptations ? Matthew, in his 
narrative, marks each of the temptations by an expression of 
time. Thus he says, "Then the devil" did so and so; and, 
" Again the devil " did so and so. Thus Matthew asserts the 
exactness of his arrangement. Luke merely connects the 
temptations by the conjunctive word "And;" but then this 
conjunction does, in a serious narrative, of itself sufficiently 
indicate the order of succession. Besides, Luke, in his preface, 
tells Theophilus that it is one of the special objects of his 
gospel "to write unto him in order 1 ' fkaihexes — in the order 
of their succession) those things in which he had been (cate- 
chetically) instructed. In this way both Matthew and Luke 
claim for themselves accuracy in the order of their differently- 
arranged histories. Which is right we cannot ascertain ; 
but one must be wrong: and so this passage is another 
testimony of the Bible against its own supposed infalHbility. 

But the history of the temptation illustrates our argument 
in another way. Both Matthew and Luke profess to give us 
the exact dialogue — the very words which passed between 
Jesus and the devil. Both the evangelists introduce the 
several portions of the dialogue by the phrase "Jesus saith 
unto him," or, " the devil saith unto him." Now, in a dialogue 
so recorded, if the book containing it be wholly free from all 
error — that is, be infallible — there should be no difference be- 
tween the sets of words which the speakers are represented 
as uttering. Let us then see, in this particular, what testi- 
mony the Bible bears of itself. 

The dialogue between Jesus and Satan is given thus : 



By Matthew. 

Satan,— If thou be the Son of God, 
command that these stones be made 
bread. 

Jesus, — It is written, Man shall not 
live by bread alone, but by every word 
that proceedeth out of the mouth of God . 

Satan,— If thou be the Son of God, 
east thyself down ; for it is written, He 
shall give his angels charge concerning 
thee, and in their hands they shall bear 
thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy 
foot against a stone . 



By Luke. 

Satan, — If thou be the Son of God, 
command this stone that it be made 
bread. 

Jesus,— It is written, That man shall 
not live by bread alone, but by every 
word of God, 

Satan, — If thou be the Son of God 
cast thyself down from hence ; for it is 
written, He shall give his angels charge 
over thee to keep thee, and in their 
hands they shall bear thee up, lest at 
any time thou dash thy foot against a 
stone. 



30 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 



By Matthew. 

Jesus, — It is written again, Thou 
shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. 

Satax, — All these things will I give 
thee if thou wilt/a?Z down and worship 
me. 



Jesus, — Get thee hence, Satan ; for 
it is written, Thou shalt worship the 
the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt 
thou serve, 



By Luke. 

Jesus, — It is said, Thou shalt not 
tempt the Lord thy God. 

Satan, — All this poioer will I give 
thee, and the glory of them ; for that is 
delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I 
will I give it. If thou, therefore, wilt 
worship me, all shall be thine, 

Jesus,— Get thee behind me, Satan ; 
for it is written, Thou shalt worship 
the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt 
thou serve. 



This dialogue shows that the two evangelists, both pro- 
fessing to give the " ipsissima verba" of Jesus and of Satan, 
not only vary the expressions of the dialogue ; but either 
Matthew omits, or Luke adds, the important idea in Satan's 
last speech, that the powers of the world had been delivered 
to Satan, and to whomsoever he would he gave them. Apart, 
then, from the order of arranging the temptations, there are 
discrepancies of word and thought in this dialogue, which 
forbid our believing the records of both Matthew and Luke to 
be free from all error. Which evangelist may be the more 
correct, it is not for us to say ; but whichever of them be in 
error, as one certainly must be, the idea of Inspirational infal- 
libility is rendered alike untenable. 



Section 7. — Frequent Discrepancies in Recording the Words 
said to have been Spoken or Written on any given occasion. 

Nor is it only in this case that such discrepancies manifest 
themselves to the careful observer. In almost every instance 
where two or more evangelists record the same conversation, 
the various interlocutors are represented as saying the exact 
words written ; and yet the several accounts of their words 
differ remarkably. The sermon on the Mount occupies three 
long chapters* in Matthew's history ; but it is condensed into 
twenty-nine verses and a half in the sixth chapter of Luke : 
and yet there are one or two points introduced into this shorter 
statement of the sermon, which have no place in the longer 
statement. 



A. — Example of such Discrepancies in the Superscription 

OF THE CROSS. 

The four evangelists all tell us the words that were written 
* Matthew v. vi. vii. 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 31 

in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin, as a superscription on Our 
Blessed Master's cross ; and yet it is demonstrably true that 
no two of them agree in their accounts even of these words. 
They stand thus : — 

"This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." — Matt, xxvii. 37. 

" The King of the Jews."— Mark xv. 26. 

" This is the King of the Jews." — Luke xxiii. 38. 

"Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." — Johnxix. 19. 

Whichever of these four superscriptions may be regarded 
by any reader as the real one, the other three must be acknow- 
ledged as just so many manifestations of error in Scripture ; 
and acccordingly, as so many testimonies borne by the Holy 
Book itself to the effect, that there is in it neither mark of 
collusion nor sign of infallibility. 



B. — Example op such Discrepancies in Peter's Denials. 

Another remarkable illustration of this argument is to be 
found in the narrative of Peter's denying his Lord, as it is 
recorded by the Four Evangelists. The discrepancy in this 
case has been felt to be so unquestionable, that some of the 
Harmonists — if not all — have been fain to represent the four 
predictions of that denial as having been uttered on three dif- 
ferent occasions. Matthew and Mark, Mr. Gresswell thinks,* 
record the same prediction ; and we shall, therefore, content 
ourselves with observing the discrepancies in their narratives, 
without insisting on what seems to us highly probable — 
namely, that the variously-expressed predictions of this denial, 
in Luke and John, also point to the same utterance of Jesus. 
Now, if the reader examine this matter, he will find that, 
according to Matthew, our Lord's words were, " Verily I say 
" unto thee, that this night, before the cock crow thou shalt 
" deny me thrice ;" whilst, according to Mark, Our Saviour's 
words on this same occasion were, " Verily I say unto thee, 
" that this day, even this night, before the cock crow twice, 
" thou shalt deny me thrice." Thus far we have no evidence 
of infallible exactness and unfailing agreement in these two 
acknowledged records of the same words. But we proceed to 
notice the fourfold narrative of the sad accomplishment of this 
denial of Jesus. 

* E. g. — Vide Gresswell's Diss., vol, iii,, p. 193. 



32 



DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 



In the first denial, a damsel is represented by each evange- 
list as saying — 

Matt. xxvn. Mark xiv. Luke xxii. John xviii. 

Thou also wast I Thou also wast | This man was I Art not thou 
with Jesus of Ga- with Jesus of Na- also with him. also one of this 

lilee. I zareth. | man's disciples? 



| zareth. 
Peter is represented as saying in reply- 



I know not what j 
thou sayest. 



I know not, nei- 
ther understand I 
what thou sayest. 



Woman, I know I 
him not. 



I am not. 



At this point Mark alone adds, " and the cock crew." 
In the second denial the several narratives run tlms- 



Another maid i A maid said 
said, This fellow again, This is one 
was also with Je- of them, 
sus of Nazareth. I 



Another (Jiete- 1 The by-standers 
ros, another man) j said, Art not thou 
said, Thou art also also one of his dis- 
of them. j ciples ? 



Here it is observable again that no two evangelists give the 
challenge, which is supposed to have elicited but one reply, in 
the same words. Peter's second denial stands thus — 

Again he denied | And he denied it I And Peter said, He denied it, and 
with an oath, I do again. Man, I am not. said, I am not. 

not know the inan. | 

Matthew alone speaks of the oath used in this answer. Three 
of the evangelists put widely different answers into the mouth 
of Peter; and Luke, who represented the question on this 
occasion as having been put by a man, makes Peter employ 
the term " Man I" with emphasis in his reply. 
The third challenge in each gospel stands thus — 



The by-standers I The by-standers 
say. Surely thou say, Surely thou 
also art one of > art one of them ; 
them ; for thy ! for thou art a 
speech bewrayeth Galilean, and thy 
thee. speech agreeth 

i thereto. 



About one hour One of the high 
after, another con- ] priest's servant* 
fidently affirmed, saith, Did not I see 
Of a truth, this thee in the garden 
fellow also was with him ? 
with him; for he is j 
a Galilean. 



Thus various, again, are the records of the remarks which 
drew froni Peter the third denial, to the effect — 



Then began he 
to curse and to 
swear, saying, I 
know not the man. 



But he began to Peter said, Man, j Peter then de- 
curse and to swear, I know not what j nied again. 
saying, 1 know not ! thou sayest. 
this man of whom 
ye speak. 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 33 

Here again, as in the two former denials, there is a wide 
discrepancy between Luke's answer and that recorded by 
Matthew and Mark. Not only does Lnke say that Peter's 
brief denial was addressed to one particidar man, bnt Luke 
adds, that "immediately, while Peter yet spake, the cock 
" crew, and the Lord turned and looked upon Peter." That 
sorrowing look of pitying, almost mrreproving love, melted 
the denier's heart. Compunction and repentance were, ac- 
cording to this unmatched, exquisite narrative of St. Luke, so 
instantaneous, that there was no time for the cursing and 
swearing of which Matthew and Mark tell us, unless, indeed, 
the evangelists are here recording wholly different denials of 
Peter's. But, this idea once admitted, we shall be compelled 
to acknowledge at least ten different denials, for that is the 
number of distinct forms in which Peter's three denials stand 
recorded in the four gospels. As was to be expected, from 
what we have already seen, Matthew, Luke, and John record 
the first crowing of the cock after the third denial ; but Mark 
says this was the second time the cock had crowed. If Mark 
be right in this assertion, what becomes of the other evan- 
gelists' words, " The cock shall not crow, till thou hast 
" denied me thrice ?" If Mark be wrong in this matter, 
what becomes of inspirational infallibihty ? If Mark, an in- 
spired Bible writer, might err in this instance, why may not 
he, or any other sacred penman, have erred in recording any 
most important doctrine, even as they differ in then records 
of the words of institution in the Lord's supper, and as they 
widely and most perplexingly differ in their accounts of 
Christ's several appearances after his resurrection ? These 
fourfold narratives are evidently not the dictation of an infal- 
lible Spirit, however much they may be the compositions of 
four honest early Christian men, in whom the promised Spirit 
of their Master was powerfully carrying on His glorious work 
of enligktemnent and sanctification. 



C. — The Census of David, the Purchase of Aceldama, the 
Hour of the Crucifixion, and the Numbers of the Plague- 
Stricken, are further Illustrations of such Inaccu- 
racies. 
These discrepancies, which mark all honest contemporary 

records, and which thoroughly evince the fallibility of man, 

D. 



34 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGAUD 

may be multiplied to a great extent by any diligent student 
who will peruse such works as Strauss's Life of Jesus, or De 
Wette's Introduction to the Bible. 

Such a reader may observe, and should reflect upon the 
fact, that the Book of Samuel tells us (2 Samuel xxfv. 9) that 
the result of David's famous numbering of the people was, 
that "Joab gave up the sum;" "and there were in Israel 
" 800,000 valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of 
" Judah were 500,000 men." This seems a marvellous army, 
1,300,000 soldiers, for a territory less than two hundred miles 
long by a hundred miles broad. But what is our amazement 
when we find the book of Chronicles (1 Chron. xxi. 5) giving 
the result of the same census as, besides the men of Levi and 
Benjamin, 1,100,000 soldiers in Israel, and 470,000 soldiers in 
Judah ; i. e., 1,570,000 soldiers from Palestine alone ! 

Such a reader will find that there are two accounts of what 
gave to the field of blood its name of horror, "Aceldama." 
On the one hand, Matthew* tells us that the field was so 
called because, after Judas, the traitor, had cast the price of 
his treachery down in the temple and had gone and hanged 
himself, the chief priests bought with that head-money the 
putter's field to bury strangers in. On the other hand, Peter, 
in the book of the Arts,-- says, that Judas "purchased a field 
" with the reward of iniquity ; and, falling headlong, he burst 
u asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." 

A careful student may observe that the evangelist Mark 
says4 "it was the third hour" (that is, 9 a.m.), "and they 
"crucified" Jesus; whereas the beloved disciple, £ in his 
account of his Master's trial and death, says, that as late as 
" the sixth hour" (that is, at our mid-day) Jesus was yet before 
the judgment-seat of Pilate, and that weak, time-serving judge 
was still writhing under the dread of condemning "that just 
"man." || 

Or, again, such a student will observe that, in a certain 
plague, the book of Numbers IF gives 24,000 as the multitude 
who fell; whereas Paul, writing to the Corinthians about the 
same plague, states the victims as 23,000. 

* Matt, xxvii. 3, &c, t Acts i. 18, J Mark xv. 20. § John xix. 14. 

|| Within the last few years, an ingenious, but, as we think, most far-fetched 
attempt has been made to remove this discrepancy by alleging that John counts 
his hours from midnight, and not from sunrise and sunset (G a.m, and 6 p.m. ), 
as do the other New Testament writers. 

% Numbers xxv, 9, 



ITS TEACHING- AS INFALLIBLE ? 35 

Section 8. — The People, Learned and Unlearned, are 
noticing these Discrepancies. 

That there are in Scripture these, and a hundred other 
discrepancies, amounting sometimes to positive and irrecon- 
cilable contradictions, is what every careful student cannot 
fail to discover — what every reader of general literature has 
pointed out to hinr in Home's Introduction to the Scriptures, 
and in many other common books of so-called Christian evi- 
dences, if, indeed, he does not read of these and other dis- 
crepancies in the powerful, bold, and self-sacrificing language 
of Theodore Parker and Francis Newman ; and this, too, is 
what multitudes even of our labouring and mechanical classes 
are devouring in the lectures and publications of men like 
Messrs. Holyoake, Barker, and their coadjutors in "Secularism." 

In vast numbers of cases, alternative questions may be 
proposed — Did 23,000 die in the plague, or was it 24,000 ? 
Was the Saviour crucified at nine in the morning, or was he 
still on trial at mid- day ? Did Judas buy the Aceldama, or 
were the chief priests its purchasers ? Did the cock crow once 
before Peter's two last denials, and is Mark right, or did the 
cock not crow at all till after Peter's three denials, and is 
Mark wrong? Alternative questions may thus be readily 
framed by the score ; and whichever alternative the reader 
accepts, the Bible alike denies its own infalhbihty. In all such 
alternative questions, the conviction on our mind is, that one or 
other of the inspired penmen was, in each case, mistaken ; 
and, on whichever side the error may have been, the supposed 
infallibility of the Bible is equally disproved. 



36 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 



CHAPTEK III. 

THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH SCRIPTURAL ERRORS RECOGNISED BY THE 
LEARNED AND THE PIOUS. 



Section 1. — Forced Harmonies abandoned, and the Truth 
confessed. 

We know that there are devices by which it is possible to 
fence with these errors in the history of Holy Writ ; but, for 
ourselves, we have too often felt, as we were using them, that 
our heart misgave us lest, instead of the sword of the Spirit, 
which is every soul-touching word of God, we might bo 
holding a lie in our right hand. For ourselves, we have 
endured too much bitter anguish in this matter to doubt that 
the unsatisfactory apologies of well-meaning Christians, whose 
wish it is to defend what they suppose to be "the faith," have 
repelled many an anxious inquirer, and driven many an earnest 
heart into the bleak inhospitalities of unbelief. But truth is 
verily great ; and although the popular mind — alike of believ- 
ers on the one side, and of unbelievers on the other — is still 
far removed from logical and true views on the grand subject 
of Inspiration, yet there has been progress in the right direc- 
tion ; so that the intelligent Christian apologist of the present 
day, concedes to his opponent many a point which, erewhile, 
it was thought wise to hold stoutly by in spite of difficulty 
and unreasonableness. 



Section 2. — The Opinions of several Learned and Eminent 
Divines. 
A. — The Opinion of Neander. 

Hear on this subject the words of that JSTeander, who, as 
one of the foremost scholars, thinkers, and theologians even of 
Germany, and as, at the same time, a man of blameless holi- 
ness in the eyes of his fellow-men, was chosen by the King of 
Prussia to reply to the great sceptical work of Strauss on the 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 37 

Life of Jesus. It is in opening his vindication of an historical 
basis for the religion of Christ, as opposed to the mythical 
theory of his learned adversary, that Neander writes — * 

" It must be regarded as one of the greatest boons which 
"the purifying process of Protestant theology in Germany has 
" conferred upon faith, as well as science, that the old mechani- 
" cal view of Inspiration has been so generally abandoned. 
" That doctrine, and the forced harmonies to which it led, 
" demanded a clerk-like accuracy in the evangelical accounts, 
"and could not admit even the slightest contradiction in 
" them ; but we are now no longer compelled to have recourse 
" to subtilties against which our sense of truth rebels. In 
" studying the historical connexion of our Saviour's life and 
" actions by the application of an unfettered criticism, we 
" reach a deeper sense in many of his sayings than the bonds 
" of the old dogmatism would have allowed." These words 
from the Christian apologist, Neander, fully confirm the view 
of Inspirational infallibility which we have so far taken, and 
they are in entire accordance with all which we have still to 
put forward on this subject. 



B. — The Opinion of Bishop Burnet. 

Lest the "old"-ness, which Neander ascribes to the 
opinions that he and we alike oppose, should mislead any 
reader into the idea that our teaching is a novelty among 
those who call themselves Christians, we extract the following 
remarkable words from Bishop Burnet's observations on the 
Ninth Article :f — " When an argument is brought in Scripture 
" to prove another thing by, though we are bound to acknow- 
ledge the conclusion, yet we are not always sure of the 
"premises, for they are often founded upon received opinions." 
Thus inconsistently did the old Bishop of Salisbury believe 
the conclusions of Scripture arguments infallible, while he 
admitted that parts of Scripture — namely, the premises of its 
arguments — were fallible, and might not be binding on us. 
What is new, in our views on Inspiration, is not their matter 
or their existence — but the clear acknowledging of them to 
oneself, and the candid avowal of them to other men. 

* English translation of Neander's Life of Christ, page 8, Bohn's edition, 
1851. 

f Burnet on the Thirty-nine Articles, Oxford edition, 1814, p. 157, 



Sb DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

C. — The Opinion of Professor Tholuck. 

The truth, of this statement will be sufficiently apparent to 
any reader who is moderately acquainted with the history of 
theology, or who will peruse two short articles of Professor 
Tholuck 's, which were translated in the July and August 
numbers of " Evangelical Christendom" in 1850.* 

Thus we believe that great progress has of late years been 
made, not in discovering new truth relative to Inspiration, 
but in the clearer perception and more open avowal of old 
truth, the existence of which has been always suspected, and 
sometimes manifestly felt, but which has been too long feared 
and suppressed. As evidence of this progress, we can adduce 
from the writings of four living and most enlightened English 
prelates, words which, even now, some well-meaning Chris- 
tians, whose intellects are of slow-marching power, reprehend; 
but which, seventy years ago, would have been censured on 
all sides as little or nothing less than what Tom Paine or 
Voltaire wanted. 



D. — The Opinion of Bishop Hinds (Norwich). 

Thus the Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Hinds, in the midst of 
much which is in accordance with the popular notion that 
Inspiration has made the Bible infallible, writes in the follow- 
ing terras : — -j- 

" To religious instruction of whatever kind is confined the 
" Scriptural character of Scripture — the agency of the Holy 
"Spirit." * * * * " It is not therefore truth of all kinds 
" that the Bible was inspired to teach, but only such truth as 
" tends to religious edification ; and the Bible is consequently 
" infallible as far as regards this, and this alone." * * * 
" Accordingly, if we wish to determine the authority of any 
" assertion or direction in Scripture, the rule which Scripture 
" itself furnishes is, that, as far as it is religious instruction, it 
" is infallible ; as far as it is not, its authority is that which 
" attaches to the work of an honest and sincere author, and 
" varies according to his individual circumstances, and the 
" circumstances of the country and age in which he wrote." 

* Published by Partridge and Oakey, London, 
t Hinds on Inspiration, pp. 151, 152. Fellowes, London, 1831. 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 39 

E. — The Opinion of Archbishop Whately (Dublin). 

One of the most ingenious and instructive of modern writers, 
Dr. Whately, the present Archbishop of Dublin, is not sparse 
in his commendations of Bishop Hinds' works in general, and 
of the volume on Inspiration in particular ; and the Archbishop 
himself writes : — * 

" In matters, indeed, unconnected with religion, such as 
" pomts of history, or natural philosophy, a writer who pro- 
" fesses (as the Apostles do) to be communicating a divine 
"revelation, imparted to him through the means of miracles, 
" may be as liable to error as other men, without any clis- 
" paragement to his pretensions ; but if we reject as false any 
"part of the religion which he professes himself divinely sent 
" to teach, we cannot, consistently, believe but that his preten- 
" sions are either an imposture or a delusion, and that he is 
" wholly unworthy of credit." 

We do not see the force of the last part of the Archbishop's 
assertion. It is at least conceivable that a man might have 
his attention drawn to a revelation by its miracles. He might 
feel himself indubitably sent by God to teach that religion 
which had been so imparted to him through the means of 
miracles ; and yet he might, from a failure of perception or of 
memory, or from other causes, err in his mode of teaching a 
religion so imparted to him, and which he was so sent to 
teach. Thus Peter, though he was divinely sent to teach a 
religion miraculously imparted to him, was manifestly in error 
— and that religious error too — when, at Antioch, Paul "with- 
" stood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" for 
"not waiting uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel," 
and for " compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews." On 
these grounds, we entirely dissent from the latter part of this 
quotation from Dr. Whately, which we have thought it fair to 
give in its entirety, lest we should seem to suppress that 
which a man so worthy of respect had written against the 
very views that we uphold. In a subsequent part of our 
inqvhry, the supposed connexion between Miracles and In- 
spirational Infalhbility will come properly under our notice. 
Here we would simply direct attention to the fact, that, at 
least in matters of history or natural philosophy, Bishops 
Hinds and Whately are agreed that the Bible is fallible. 

* Whately' s Sermons on the principal Christian Festivals, &c, p. 90 ; Note to 
the Sermon on the Apostle Thomas; Third Edition. J. \V. Parker, London, 1854. 



40 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

F. — The Opinion of another living English Bishop. 

The learned and Eight Eeverend Translator* of " Schleier- 
" macher's Critical Essay on St. Luke," writes thus, in page 
15 of his Introduction to that work: — "As the more rigid 
"theory of Inspiration was abandoned by the learned on ac- 
" count of the insuperable difficulties opposed to it by the 
" discrepancies found in the Gospels; so these same discre- 
" pancies compel us to admit, that the superintending control 
" of the Spirit was not exerted to exempt the sacred writers 
" altogether from errors and inadvertencies." 

These are most weighty words, and they come from a writer 
than whom none is more competent to express an opinion. 
This passage points to three different truths : — 

1st. — The difficulties in the way of a rigid theory of inspi- 
ration are insuperable. 

2nd. — These difficulties show that Scripture is not wholly 
exempt from error — that is, is not infallible. 

3rd. — The learned have abandoned a rigid theory of inspira- 
tion, and have been compelled to admit that Scripture is in 
some measure fallible. 

The Eight Eeverend Prelate from whom we quote does not 
fix limits to Scriptural fallibility, as the Archbishop of Dublin 
and the Bishop of Norwich do. But we do not wish to state 
the case at all over-strainedly ; and so we will suppose that 
these three prelates go no further than acknowledging that, 
while the religious teaching of Scripture is infallible, the 
historical, the philosophical, and generally, the non-religious 
information of the Bible, is honestly but fallibly given. Thus, 
then, these prelates do not assert the Bible to be an infallible 
book, or a book whose teaching is wholly free from error ; but 
they maintain that the Bible is a book which contains fallible 
portions and infallible portions. It is not an infallible book ; 
but there is something infallible in it. 

Surely the line between the fallible and the infallible in 
Scripture should be very clearly and strongly marked ; and 
the truly amiable Bishop of Norwich thinks it is so. " When, 
"for example," he says (page 152 of his work on Inspiration), 

* If the reader should be at a loss to know who this " Translator" is, we may- 
refer hhn to a statement made in Home's Introduction to the Bible, vol. v. p. 
362, ninth edition. Mr. Home's statement is repeated in very many tolerably 
well-known books, and has never, so far as we are aware, been contradicted by 
the bishop or his friends. 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 41 

i Moses, in relating the history of the Creation, speaks of the 
" sun being set in the firmament, his authority for the astro- 
" nomical truth is only human ; the religious truth involved 
"in it is, that God created and appointed the sun its sphere ; 
" and in this the authority of Moses is infallible." Dr. Hinds 
gives several other illustrations, to show how clear the dis- 
tinction is between the religious and infallible on the one 
hand, and the non-religious and only human or fallible on the 
other. But if this notion of the fallible and the infallible be 
correct, it admits of wide application indeed. Not merely when 
the sun stood still at Joshua's bidding — not merely when the 
dumb ass rebuked the obstinacy of the prophet — not merely 
when Ezekiel lay on his left side 390 days, and then on his 
right side 40 days, may we say the historical truth of these 
narratives rests on fallible human evidence ; and it is only the 
religious truth involved in them which, in each case, is in- 
fallible. Not only may we say thus : we may go much further, 
and say consistently with the principle of the Bishop, that in 
the whole Old Testament account of the Creation, the Patri- 
archal Age, and the Jewish Nation, and similarly in the whole 
New Testament description of the Birth, Life, Death, Besur- 
rection, and Ascension of Our Lord, the " authority for the 
" historical truth is only human ; the religious truth involved 
" in it is," that G-od is love and that He will have all men to be 
saved; " and in this the authority of" the Bible "is infallible." 
The author and approver of these ideas are surely too clear 
thinkers and too good logicians not to have seen the whole 
width and breadth in which this principle for distinguishing 
between the fallible and the infallible in Holy Writ would 
apply. Thus entirely, then, do Bishops Whately, Hinds, and 
another, agree with us, that the Bible is not an infallible 
book, however holy, true, and profitable we may all thankfully 
acknowledge it to be. 



G-. — The Opinion of Bishop Hampden (Hereford). 

But we undertook to adduce the testimony on this subject 
of a fourth living and most learned prelate. In his Bampton 
Lectures,* which have been too little read and too shamefully 

* Dr. Hampden's Bampton Lectures. Third Edition, pp. 301, 302. Publishers, 
Simpkin, Marshall, & Co. 



42 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

slandered, Dr. Hampden, the present Bishop of Hereford, after 
showing the difference by which Morality, the science of 
Ethics, is distinguished from Eeligion, proceeds to write thus, 
— " Christianity, in fact, leaves Ethical science, as such, pre- 
" cisely where it found it; all the duties which Ethical science 
"prescribes remain on their own footing, not altered or 
" weakened, but affirmed and strengthened, by the association 
"of Eeligion. And, so independent is the science of Ethics 
" of the support and the ennobling which it receives from 
" Religion, that it would be nothing strange or objectionable 
" in a revelation, were we to find embodied in its language 
" much of the false Ethical Philosophy which systems may 
11 have established. This, I conceive, would appear to those 
'• who bear in mind the real distinctness of Religion and Moral 
" Science, nothing more objectionable than the admission into 
" the sacred volume of descriptions involving false theories of 
" Natural Philosophy." 

These words of Dr. Hampden's recognise errors in Natural 
Philosophy as having a place in Scripture, just as his right 
reverend brothers had recognised errors in the Bible on sub- 
jects not strictly religious. But the Bishop of Hereford, in 
the eloquent expression of his deep yet transparent thought, 
advances even a step further than his brothers on the bench 
have ventured. He is of opinion that there may possibly be 
errors in Scripture on points of morality. " It would be no- 
" thing straDge or objectionable in a Revelation" — (Query, 
does the Bible profess itself to be " a Revelation?" Does it 
not rather purport to be the human record of a divine revela- 
tion ? but, even in a Revelation, Bishop Hampden would deem 
it nothing strange or objectionable) — " were we to find em- 
" bodied in its language much of the false ethical philosophy 
" which systems may have established." Thus, for example, 
when Abraham and Isaac and Jacob are untruthful them- 
selves, or teach their wives untruthfulness, and the Bible 
praises them for their general conduct, and represents the 
Deity as miraculously favouring those patriarchs, but does not 
distinctly reprehend their untruthfulness — when the Israelites 
think that, under any circumstances, it can be morally right 
for them to slay the women and children of the Canaanites, 
and the Old Testament rather approves of this their thought 
than otherwise — or when Abraham is led to believe that child- 
sacrifice can be morally right, and the ethical error of this 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 43 

belief is not shown to him — in these and many snch oases, as 
in the histories of Samson, Jephtha, David, and Solomon, there 
may, on Dr. Hampden's principle, be embodied in the langnage 
of Scripture much of the false ethical philosophy which systems 
may have established. 



Section 3. — These Writers own to Scriptural Errors in every- 
thing except Religion. 

So then, according to the confessions of eminent and right 
reverend rulers and overseers of the English Established 
Church, there may be errors of science, of history, and of 
morality in the Bible ; but still the idea of Scriptural Infalli- 
bility, on matters of religion, must be maintained. Now, 
"the learned" few may be able to perceive the nice distinc- 
tions between the religious, and therefore infallible sections 
of the Bible, as contrasted with its non-religious, and there- 
fore fallible sections or meanings ; but the unlearned many 
will surely not be able to perceive distinctly these shades of 
difference. 

If, on the ground of these recognised and palpable errors in 
the science, history, and morality of Scripture, our bishops 
had said clearly and intelligibly, that the Bible was, however 
excellent, yet a fallible book, we should have admired their 
clear-sightedness and their courage even more than we now 
do ; but, as it is, our ecclesiastical rulers seem to confess a 
great part of the truth, and then to stop short, and suddenly 
uphold the idea of religious infallibility being in a fallible 
book. We see the meaning of this distinction, and we can 
sympathize with the natural timidity — we would rather say, 
the reverential awe — of these dignitaries ; but we cannot help 
fearing that in the case of a religion which, like the popular 
conception of Christianity, has its doctrines based for the most 
part on historical facts, the opinions advanced by these learned 
and truly venerable men deal with the sacred terms " In- 
spiration" and " Infallibility," in a manner likely to be most 
injurious to the religious trathfulness and the Christian faith 
of ordinary intellects ; and for ourselves, we, as part of the 
unlearned many, are ready to exclaim — Oh ! enviable logical 



44 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

perception, never to confound morality with religion! and 
never to doubt the mysteries of the faith, whilst all the nar- 
ratives of facts, on which those mysteries are based, are 
avowedly open to criticism and disbelief! 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 45 

CHAPTER IV. 

ARE THERE NO RELIGIOUS ERRORS IN HOLr WRIT ? 



We cannot blame these prelates for their acknowledgments as 
to the partial fallibility of Scripture ; for we have seen in the 
Bible itself abundant reasons which compel us to agree in 
their confessions. The question however, still remains, as to 
whether the sacred volume is infallible in its religious teaching. 
When one has shown a Eomanist that Popes, and Councils, 
and Churches have erred, and therefore cannot be infallible, 
the constant rejoinder is — " We never said they were wholly 
" infallible, but only we declare them to be infallible in their 
"official and regular teaching." Just so it too frequently is 
with the Protestant : one shows him that there are errors in 
the Bible, and therefore that the Bible cannot be infallible ; 
and he, by the mouths of his choicest spokesmen, rejoins, 
" We do not say the Bible is altogether infallible ; but we 
"assert that Holy Writ is infallible in its religious teaching." 
Well, then, it is on this solemn question that, in the interests 
of truth, which we believe to be identical with the interests 
of Christianity, we are about to join issue with Dr. Hinds and 
his friends. 



Section 1. — Does the Bible permit us to regard its Religious 
Teaching as Inspirationally Infallible t 

A. — The History of Jael. 

As a case in which it is not very easy (if at all possible) to 
separate the religious and the moral elements, let us look first 
at the history of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. 

There had been a fierce battle between the long-oppressed 
but now victorious Israelites, and the discomfited hosts of 
Jabin king of Hazor. Heber the Kenite was not an Israelite, 
and therefore was not necessarily one of the Canaanite's 
enemies. Nay, we are even told that "there was peace be- 



46 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

" tween Jabin, the king of Hazor, and the house of Heber the 
" Kenite.'' Sisera, the captain of Jabin' s host, was compelled 
to flee away, on foot, for his life. In the tent of the friendly 
Heber he was affectionately received, with all the hospitality 
of the East. Belying on the good faith of his hostess Jael, 
Heber's wife, Sisera composed himself to sleep. Then it was 
that, from some motive which is not distinctly assigned, but 
which appears to have been fear lest the long provoked 
Israelites should find her harbouring their now vanquished 
oppressor, Jael stole upon the slumbering Sisera, and slew 
him by driving one of the tent nails into his forehead. Thus 
was she enabled, shortly afterwards, to gain credit for herself 
with the triumphant Jews, by showing the smitten chief to 
his pursuer, Barak. 

This whole transaction is recorded in the Bible in language 
worthy of the grandest tragedy ; and, moreover, an inspired 
prophetess, Deborah, who had foretold the manner of Sisera's 
death, chants the glory and the vengeance of the Canaanitish 
overtlu-ow ; and in this chant she recounts the deed of Jael, 
and sings, " Blessed above women shall Jael, the wife of 
" Heber the Kenite, be ; blessed shall she be above women in 
" the tent." 

We must leave Dr. Hampden to draw the lines of demar- 
cation between the fallible morality and the infallible religion 
of this history and this teaching. For ourselves, we think it 
perilous to attempt teaching the purest religious principles by 
such questionable morality without designating the deed of 
Jael by its true name ; and we put it to every conscience 
which knows humanity, or has been enlightened by the New 
Testament, whether the true and proper name of this scrip- 
turally-approved deed be not treachery and murder most base, 
foul, and unnatural ? 



B. — Some of the Imprecations of Jeremiah, the Psalmist, and 
Paul. 

The too probable religious effects of this story appear in 
such passages as the following ; for instance — in Jeremiah's 
dreadful imprecation of Divine vengeance on his enemies ;* 

* Jeremiah xviii. 21-23. 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 47 

or in Psalm cix. 6-20, including the words, " Let his children 
" be fatherless, and his wife a widow ; let his children be con- 
" tinually vagabonds and beg ; let them seek their bread also 
" out of desolate places ; let the extortioner catch all that he 
" hath ; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be 
" none to extend mercy unto him ; neither let there be any to 
"favour his fatherless children. * * Let the iniquity of 
" his fathers be remembered with the Lord ; and let not the 
" sin of his mother be blotted out:" or, in Psalm lviii. 6-10, 
which concludes with the assurance, " The righteous shall 
" rejoice when he seeth the vengeance; he shall wash his feet 
"in the blood of the wicked:" or, again, the too probable 
effects of teaching, which, on the principle that God's enemies 
are to perish, can approve a deed like that of Jael, are seen in 
such a prayer as that of Paul for the condemnation and punish- 
ment of his opponent: "Alexander the coppersmith did me 
" much evil; the Lord reward him according to his works." 

Now, of these and the numerous other imprecations of the 
Bible, we shall only say that, in spirit as well as in letter, 
they are direct contradictions of Him who said, " Love your 
" enemies : bless them that curse you : pray for them which 
" despitefolly use you and persecute you ;" and who, for his 
time-serving and unrighteous crucifiers, prayed, saying — 
" Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." 

Either the sinless one, our Lord and Saviour, must be in 
error in this his religious teaching of love and forgiveness, or 
Deborah, Jeremiah, the Psalmist, and Paul, must have been 
in error when they religiously — or rather, it should be said, 
irreligiously — exemplified and gloried in their vengeful wrath 
and dreadful imprecations against their enemies. Which of 
these two parties was at fault, no sane man will doubt ; but 
on whichever side the error be confessed, it is a direct testi- 
mony of Scripture itself against the idea that the Bible is 
infallible, even in its moral and religious teaching. 



C. — The Jewish Belief (or Disbelief) of Man's Life in a 
Future World. 

The question as to man's existence after death Dr. Hampden 
seems to regard as quite apart from morality, a purely religious 
question. Let us, therefore, consider how far the teaching of 



48 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

Scripture, on this subject, is consistent, and so, possibly, 
infallible. Every one who has read Bishop Warburton's 
" Divine Legation of Moses," is aware that that ingenious and 
most learned writer represents it as one of the peculiarities by 
which Judaism is distinguished from Heathenism, that, whereas 
it was never attempted to rule any Heathen state without the 
sanction of future rewards which might be hoped for by the 
obedient, and future punishments which must be anticipated 
by the disobedient, the Jews were governed by Moses and Iris 
successors, without any reference to a future state, by the 
mere appeal to that wondrous dispensation of a special Provi- 
dence which unfailingly cast down the wicked, and so upheld 
the good that the righteous was never seen forsaken, nor Iris 
seed begging their bread. 

Such was Warburton's clever argument ; and, whether he 
was right or wrong, he has many wise Christian men in the 
present day who agree with his opinion, that in a considerable 
portion of the Old Testament there is no distinct doctrine of a 
future state. Such men prove that Job's words had manifest 
reference to his full expectation, that he should find a physician 
to heal him, and restore him to health in this world. They 
show that the passages, generally adduced to prove that 
the Old Testament teaches the doctrine of a future state, 
require such a mode of interpretation as makes them refer 
to this life only; and then they go on to demonstrate that 
there are many passages of the Jewish Scriptures which 
imply that pious Jews entertained a distinct disbelief of a future 
life. 

We are not ourselves prepared to assert that such a dis- 
belief attaches to all the ancient Hebrew writers: but we 
suppose that the least attention must convince any unblinded 
reader that there are not a few passages in the Old Testament 
which give plain and unmistakeable countenance to Bishop 
Warburton's argument. For instance, what is the teaching of 
the sixth Psalm? "Keturii, Lord, deliver my soul: oh, 
" save me for thy mercies' sake ; for in death there is no 
" remembrance of thee : in the grave who shall give thee 
" thanks ?" 

H any passage like this could be found in Aristotle, or in 
Plato, would it not be paraded as an irrefragable proof that 
the wisest heathens denied the immortality of the soul? 
Aristotle has left on record his belief that, after death, human 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 49 

souls are cognisant, at least in some degree, of their family's 
welfare or ill-fortune ; yet, because he has once spoken of death 
as " a sort of goal in our existence" (per as ti), that is, as a 
changing point, where one race is ended, and whence the 
start for a new life is to be made, therefore this saying of the 
great philosopher is handed about, among the ignorant, as a 
proof that Aristotle doubted whether death was not annihila- 
tion. What a godsenclit would be for narrow-minded, truth- 
fearing theologians, if they had only found Psalm vi. 5 in 
Aristotle instead of in the Hagiographa ! But, lest any should 
say that this verse from the Psalm refers merely to the body 
whilst it lies crumbling in the grave, and is so far from denying 
a future state of the soul's existence that it does not even 
question the doctrine of the body's resurrection, let us read 
the words of another Psalm, the eighty- eighth, " Lord, I have 
" called daily unto thee ; I have stretched out my hands unto 
" thee. Wilt thou show wonders to the dead ? Shall the 
" dead arise and praise thee ? Shall thy loving kindness be 
" declared in the grave ? or thy faithfulness in destruction ? 
" Shall thy wonders be known in the dark? and thy righteous - 
" ness in the land of forgetfulness ?" 

There can, assuredly, be no reasonable dispute as to the 
doctrine of this Psalm. The dead are unconscious. No 
mystery is solved for them. The soul goes to no brighter 
realm of light. " The land of the hereafter" is " the dark" 
and the region of forgetfulness. Nor is there any prospect of 
an end to this state of things. There shall be no resurrection; 
for the dead shall not arise and praise God. 

Once more, let any reader see the practical effect of this 
teaching on the mind of a man eminent for his piety, at a time 
when he thought death was at hand. Hezekiah's life was 
miraculously prolonged for fifteen years ; but, before he heard 
that such a continuance of life was in the Divine will towards 
him, what had been Hezekiah's sentiments in the time of 
dangerous sickness ? Isaiah tells us that those sentiments 
found utterance in such words as these, "I said, in the cutting 
" off of my days I shall go to the gates of the grave. I am 
" deprived of the residue of my years. I said, I shall not see 
" the Lord, even the Lord, in the land of the living. I shall 
"behold man no more with the inhabitants of the world." 
***** " From day even to night wilt thou make an 
" end of me." * * * * "For the grave cannot praise thee: 

% 



50 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

" death cannot celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit 
" cannot hope for thy truth." These and other similar words 
of despondency did the famons Hebrew monarch, Hezekiah, 
utter, when he feared that death was at hand to "make an end 
"of him." It is quite needless to prove, by quotation, that 
the New Testament Scriptures contradict these sombre views 
of death : they confessedly teach the immortality of the soul, 
and the resurrection of a glorified, spiritual body. 

Both these doctrines cannot be true. Either the despairing 
idea of annihilation must be true, and the hopeful thought of 
a better world wrong ; or, the doctrine of immortality must be 
true, and the thought of annihilation false. Whichever alter- 
native is chosen, the notion of the Bible being an infallible 
teacher, even of religion, is alike contravened by Scripture 
itself. 



D. — The Apostolic Belief as to the Time of Christ's Second 
Coming to Judge the World. 

There is another subject which, as being wholly unknown 
without the aid of revelation, and as professing to be a point 
in the Christian revelation, we presume that even Bishop 
Hampden would acknowledge to be a purely religious subject. 
Our allusion is to the second Messianic Advent, or the coming 
of God's anointed One to judgment. 

We are not about to discuss the question, whether the Old 
Testament writers were always happily exact in their antici- 
pations of the Christ. Our object is rather to ascertain whether 
the New Testament writings are infallible in their views on 
this one subject connected with Christianity. 

At the outset, it is not a little observable, that the sacred 
penmen represent our Lord as saying, at one time, that of the 
day and hour when the Lord shall come, knoweth no man ; 
no, not the angels of heaven ; neither the Son, but the Father 
only.* Whereas, at another moment, they tell us that the 
Saviour assured his followers that the fall of Jerusalem ; the 
coming of the Son of Man, with power and great glory, in such 
away as that "all the tribes of the earth should see" Him;f 
and the gathering together of his elect from the four winds, 

* Matt. xxiv. 36-42; Mark xiii. 32. f Matt. xziv. 30, 31. 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 51 

from the one end of heaven to the other — " all these things 
" shall be fulfilled''* before the then existing generation should 
have passed away. 

Now, manifestly, all those things did not come to pass be- 
fore the apostolic generation had passed away ; and, therefore, 
unless any man is prepared to think our blessed Saviour liable 
to err, we must believe that in this, as in other demonstrable 
cases, the Evangelists slightly varied the form of what the Son 
of God had said ; and so, unintentionally, gave to our Lord's 
words a meaning which he did not intend they should bear, 
and in which they were not true. We are the more confirmed 
in this belief, when we find, in the Gospels, contradictory 
reports of our Lord's teaching on this subject, such as those 
contrasted in the last paragraph. 

Proceeding from this point, it is clear that the New Testa- 
ment writings anticipated the day of the Lord, and the con- 
summation of all things, as an event which was to take place 
in the lifetime of many then upon earth. We can only pretend 
to give a few texts, as specimens, in proof of this assertion. 

Let the reader consider how often the expression "at hand," 
occurs in connexion with the idea of Christ's second coming 
to judge the world. Thus we read, " The night is far spent : 
" the day is at hand" (Kom. xiii. 11); and, " Let your modera- 
" tion be known unto all men: the Lord is at hand" (Phil, 
iv. 5); and, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, 
" let him be anathema maranatha," that is, anathema in the* 
day of the Lord, which is at hand (1 Cor. xvi. 22); and " The 
" end of all things is at hand" (1 Pet. iv. 7); and, in the very 
last chapter of the book of Eevelation (Eev. xxii. 10, 12), 
" The time is at hand." "Behold, I come quickly; my reward 
" is with me, to give every man according as his work shall 
" be." These passages, taken in connexion with the teaching 
of the gospel- writers, can leave no doubt in the mind of a 
reasonable man, as to the early period when the New Testa- 
ment writers expected the second advent of our Lord. Let it 
be remembered, too, that the words (in 2 Thess. ii. 2), " Be 
"not shaken in mind, nor be troubled ; neither by spirit, nor 
" by word, nor by letter, as from us, as that the day of Christ 
" is at hand," are by no means opposed to the numerous othe r 
passages already quoted. All that Paul here teaches is, tha-t 

* Matt. xxiv. 32 33. 



52 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

tlie Tliessalonians should not allow the momentary expecta- 
tion of Christ to interfere with their active duties, or their 
peace of mind. Indeed, if the first eight verses of this chapter 
be carefully read, it will be perceived that the upshot of what 
they state is this : There were at Thessalonica two contrary 
powers at work — there Avas a spirit of wickedness, called by 
the Apostle "the mystery of iniquity;" and there was, opposed 
to this, an influence (apparently an individual influence) for 
good, called by Paul, " he who now letteth until he be taken 
" out of the way." Upon the removal, by death or otherwise, 
of this good influence, Paul expected that the prime mover of 
the wickedness in Thessalonica, called by Paul "that wicked," 
would stand forth as the unblushing abettor of evil, glorying 
in all iniquity, and doing so even in the name of God : and 
then, in the lifetime of those who, in the Apostle's own day, 
were living at Thessalonica — then the clay of the Lord should 
come to the overthrow of " that wicked, whom the Lord shall 
"consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with 
" the brightness of his coming." Thus, tliis very passage, which 
seemed to postpone the day of the Lord, is itself an additional 
'' that Pan! systematically taught, as part of his religious 
doctrine, that Christ's second coining was to be in the lifetime 
of the then present generation. 

To the same effect we find the New Testament writers under 
a firm conviction that they were living in "the last days." 
This is unmistakeably apparent in such passages as the fol- 
lowing: — "Christ was manifest in these last times for you" 
(1 Pet. i. 20); " It is the last time ; and, as ye have heard that 
" antichrist shall come, even now there are many antichrists ; 
" whereby we know that it is the last time" (1 John ii. 18) ; 
" God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" (Heb. 
i. 2). But some may say that "the last days" was a well- 
known Hebrew appellation for the whole Messianic epoch. 
Such scholars may truly say that the last days, according to 
Hebrew-christian parlance, set in when Jesus established his 
doctrine, and still continue, and will continue till the " end, 
" when Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, 
" even the Father" (1 Cor. xv. 24). We readily grant that 
such was the Jewish custom in designating the Messianic 
dispensation ; but still we maintain that the New Testament 
writers believed that " the ends of the world were come upon 
"them" (1 Cor. x. 11) most literally ; and, in support of this 



ITS TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE? 53 

our belief, we adduce one more passage in addition to those 
already referred to. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
enumerates a long catalogue of men who, in former genera- 
tions, " having all obtained a good report through faith, re- 
" ceived not the promise ; God having provided some better 
" thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." 
Now, let the reader ask himself what meaning these last words 
can bear. What conceivable blessing or "promise" was there, 
connected with Christianity, which would have been exhausted 
before the Christian epoch, if its enjoyment had been com- 
menced by men in the days of Isaac, or Abraham, or earlier? 
What promise, connected with the gospel, fails to us, though 
it was made good in the first century ? Does not belief still, 
as ever, bring peace, and hope, and joy, and holiness, which 
constitute salvation? Does not Paul himself declare, that 
knowing Christ after the Spirit, as we do, is preferable to 
knowing him after the flesh, as he and his contemporaries 
had done ? Of what promise have the bygone ages of 
Christianity robbed us ? In what respect are we losers be- 
cause Christian perfection began to be introduced into the 
world eighteen centuries ago ? Nay, are we not manifold 
gainers by the accumulated blessings that are now in the 
world, by reason of the patient ministrations of the Spirit 
through all these centuries ? Similarly, what would the men 
of Paul's day have lost, if it had pleased God to fulfil his 
glorious promises at a day long anterior to their life ? What 
can be the meaning of " God having provided some better 
" thing for us, that the elders without us should not be made 
"perfect?" It has puzzled the commentators to attach an 
intelligible meaning to these words. Let our reader try; and 
if he find a difficulty in making any sense of the passage, even 
with the advantage of their commentaries, then let him re- 
member that the New Testament writers expected that the 
end of the world, and of the human race, was to be in the 
lifetime of Jesu's contemporaries. Hence they argued, if 
Jesus, the Messiah, had come one hundred years before our 
time, the world would, ere now, have been destroyed — the 
judgment would have come — the complement of the human 
race would have been made up, and we should have lost the 
glorious privilege of rational existence and Christian hope. 
Thus they thought that God had done well for them in post- 
poning the coming of his Son till their day, because they felt 



54 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

assured that the end was at hand, and that in fifty years, at 
the most, this world would be surceased. 

This doctrine of "the end" is prominent and conspicuous in 
the New Testament. Its being inculcated in the sacred volume 
is another proof, from holy writ itself, that neither in religion 
nor in any other subject does the Bible permit us to regard its 
teaching as infallible. It would be easy to multiply such 
proofs. They will — as they always have done — present 
themselves in abundance to the attentive reader of the Bible. 
Henceforward we entreat our reader not to shut his eyes 
against the truth a£ their existence — not to lay aside his 
reason — not to run the risk of corrupting his honest habits of 
thought, or weakening Iris powers of moral, intellectual, and 
spiritual discernment, by fencing with the verbal subtleties, 
by means of which it is attempted to " explain away" scrip- 
tural chfficulties. If God had intended his blessed book to be 
hrfallible, surely He would not have left on its every page the 
mark of fallibility.- 

Besides, consider the arguments for the honesty of Scripture, 
which are derivable from those discrepancies and contradictions 
which show the entire absence of anything like collusion among 
the sacred writers; and, again, consider the argument for the 
antiquity of Scripture from errors in the inspired volume, 
which mark the very age they come from. . This error about 
" the end" is a strong evidence that all the New Testament 
books — except the second Epistle of Peter, of whose genuine- 
ness, every scholar knows, there have always been more or 
less reasonable doubts — that every other New Testament 
writing was composed within a few years after the destruction 
of Jerusalem, in a.d. 70. If the New Testament writers had 
composed their books long after the destruction of Jerusalem, 
would they not have been more reserved in expressing their 
belief that the end of the world was to be a near follower, if 
not a concomitant, of the overthrow of the Temple and the 
Holy City ? If the New Testament books had been written 
early in the second century, or even very late in the first, 
would they not, like the second Epistle of Peter, have alluded 
to men's amazement at the delay in the coming of the Lord? 
"Would they not have been engaged, as part of Peter's second 
letter is, with pleading for more time in order to the fulfilling 
>f the promise ? Thus, our opinions tend to strengthen the 
; >liever's trust in God and Christ and the Holy Ghost ; for 



IT3 TEACHING AS INFALLIBLE ? 55 

they tend to show that the New Testament is a contempo- 
raneous, honestly written record of the events to which it 
alludes ; and, if the reader will only give a patient and 
thoughtful perusal to the pages which are to follow, we are 
not without a hope that they may enable him more thankfully, 
piously, and intelligently to study both the Old and New 
Testaments. 



E. — Paul's Argument in 1 Con. xv. 19, 32. 

We shall only further illustrate this part of our subject by 
drawing attention to what we regard as a strongly marked 
case of mixed moral and religious error in the writings of one 
who was a vigorous upholder of Inspiration, and a bright 
example of its glorious effects. It is in the first Epistle to 
the Corinthians, and in the midst of an elaborate discussion of 
a most solemn religious subject, the resurrection of the dead, 
that the Apostle to the Gentiles puts forth the notion, " If in 
" this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men 
"most miserable ;" and " if, after the manner of men, I have 
'.' fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if 
" the dead rise not ? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we 
"die." 

Now, let it be gravely and piously asked, what do these 
passages state, and what do they teach? They state that, on 
the supposition of there being no compensation or reward in an 
after world, the persecuted life of a holy man — whose motto 
is, Overcome evil with good — is more unhappy than the 
existence of the most vicious or the most base, who escapes 
detection and flourishes in the sordid luxury of an unhallowed 
rjrosperity. They teach that, apart from the hope of reward 
and the dread of punishment, a life like that of Sardanapalus, 
or of Tiberius at Capreee, is preferable to that of Paul. On 
these principles, men who, like the Sadducees, had no firm 
grasp of a belief in the spirit world, should have set them- 
selves to gratify their animal desires and propensities, and 
would only have been carrying out the maxim which became 
them as rational beings who were to end their existence after 
a while !' But, surely, to do good and patiently to endure, 
being buffeted for it, must always, under all circumstances 
that can be conceived, be a nobler and a happier course for 



56 DOES THE BIBLE PERMIT US TO REGARD 

man, than to batten on the grossest enjoyment of vice, or to 
glide self- condemned and self-despised through life, amid the 
smiles of flatterers and the scorn of the discerning. And 
surely, too, Paul was no stranger to the satisfaction of being 
" fully persuaded in his own mind." Paul could depict the 
present torment of an evil conscience, and the bliss of a self- 
approving conscience was not unknown to him. Surely Paul 
knew better than this, his hypothetical teaching. Surely he 
had not forgotten that the gain of a holy man, such as the 
Christian Paul himself was, was an hundredfold, in this life, 
whatever he had lost for truth and righteousness' sake, even 
though that gain were held in the midst of persecution. 
Paul assuredly knew, and habitually taught, better than this 
exceptional and conditional teaching which he wrote to the 
Corinthians. If, however, you persist in supposing, contrary 
to and in spite of all evidence, that Paul's moral and religious 
doctrine, when written, was always infallible, then you involve 
yourself in the painful j >osition of being compelled to maintain 
that, in the absence of hope for a future world, the abomina- 
tions of a pampered profanity are a wiser philosophy — if not a 
deeper piety — than bravely to endure affliction in the cause of 
such partial light and truth as man can see in this world. 
But, on the other hand, grant what all the history and all the 
science and much of the morality of the Bible do manifestly 
show — namely, that, even when holy men are under the 
purifying and exalting influence of the Spirit of God, they still 
are men, and therefore they and their writings still are fallible 
— grant this : and then, in these mournful utterances of the 
Apostle, you only find that even he was wellnigh overcome by 
evil, and for a moment was induced to write unadvisedly, 
when he laboured under the vexatious questioning, and op- 
posed the worldly-minded unbelief and want of spirituality, of 
those lucre-lovino; Corinthians. 



Section 2. — The Conclusion, an Answer to the Question of this 
Book. 
Grant this, we say ; but in making this, as we think, in- 
evitable concession, and in remembering the very numerous 
and sometimes serious errors in Scripture, of which a few 
examples have been given in these pages, let us know that 



ITS TEACHING- AS INFALLIBLE ? 57 

we are solving the problem proposed to us. Let us look on 
our position and see that, whatever else and however excellent 
may be the meaning of Inspiration, we are forced by the bear- 
ings of truth, as witnessed to by the Bible itself, to the con- 
clusion, that neither with reference to Science, History, 
Morality, nor Eeligion, does the Bible permit us to regard its 
teaching as infallible, or free from all error. 



BOOK II. 

WHAT REASON IS THERE FOE EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO 
BE INFALLIBLE? 

INTRODUCTION. 

THE SELF-CONSISTENCY OF TRCTII, IN ITS BEARINGS ON THIS QUESTION. 

Having, in the preceding pages of this Essay, recognised the 
untenableness of the popular belief that the Bible is, by its 
inspiration, guaranteed as an infallible book, let us now proceed 
to examine the grounds on which this erroneous dogma is 
maintained. Painful, indeed, will be our mental struggle, if, 
with the evidence of facts already laid before us as contradict- 
ing the notion of Biblical infallibility, we shall discover that 
there is a strong array of countervailing testimony which goes 
in support of such infallibility ; for the task must then be 
undertaken, of weighing the monstrously opposed masses of 
evidence, in order to decide for ourselves on which side the 
existence of truth is indicated by a preponderance. The un- 
natural question would then arise — Must we be guided by our 
senses and our reason, which show us Scriptural inaccuracies 
and self-contradictions, and thereby witness that Scripture is 
not infallible? or, — Must we bow to an overwhelming pressure 
of authority, and, even at the risk of stultifying reason and 
bidding defiance to the senses, must we acknowledge an in- 
accurate and self- contradictory document to be infallible? 
Thus, if, on examination, we find the alleged proofs of inspi- 
rational infallibility to be at all as weighty as the evidence 
showing the presence of errors in the Bible is palpable, there 



WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR EXPECTING, ETC. 59 

must lie before us, indeed, an agonizing — a maddening — 
conflict between the pious inclination to submit to religious 
teaching, and the inevitable propensity to believe on convic- 
tion. If, on the other hand, however, the alleged proofs, 
which we are about to examine, should appear shadowy and 
unsubstantial, then our course of faith and of reason, with 
reference to Scriptural infallibility, will be plain. 

Thus, it is impossible to avoid feeling that, as truth is 
always consistent with itself, and as one unmistakeable part 
of truth has already shown us, by the facts of the case, that 
the Bible is not infallible, we shall probably find that there 
exists no valid reason for the popular expectation of infalli- 
bility in the inspired volume. This feeling of anticijoation, 
accompanied by a certain desire that we may be able to dis- 
cover plainly the self-consistency of truth, with reference to 
our present subject, is unavoidable; but, whatever may be the 
result of our inquiry, it is assuredly our duty to scrutinize the 
proofs in question very closely, and with a pious care propor- 
tioned to the importance and improbability attaching to the 
conclusion in which they are supposed to involve us, 



60 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 



CHAPTER I. 

EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES FOR 
INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY. 

The first point we shall examine is, the proof of inspira- 
tional infallibility, which, it is said, can be drawn from 
Miracles. 

At the outset, it is clear that a writing which records the 
narratives of miraculous events is not thereby proved to be 
infallible. Those chronicles, for instance, which tell us of 
Dunstan's superhuman doings and sufferings, are not by any 
man supposed to be free from all admixture of error because 
they contain marvellous stories. Such chronicles may, indeed, 
be infallible ; but, even to establish their credibility, they 
require all the more testimony, because they expect us to 
believe what is so unlike all that we have experienced. Just 
so, let us forget for a moment what we have seen in the former 
chapter, and suppose that the Bible may be infallible. Still, 
its containing narratives of miracles does not prove its supposed 
infallibility, but rather renders an unusually great weight of 
testimony requisite, in order to establish the credibility of 
those narratives. It is not in this manner, however, that wise 
men endeavour to prove the Bible infallible, by an argument 
drawn from miracles. Their argument rather is, that the 
Scripture-writers performed miracles : that no man can per- 
form miracles, except the Spirit of God be with him : and that 
the presence of the Divine Spirit in a man, guarantees that 
man's writings as being wholly free from error. Hence, they 
deduce the inspirational infaliibihty of the Bible. 

As to the first statement, that the Scripture -writers per- 
formed miracles, can we be quite sure that all the sacred pen- 
men wrought such superhuman deeds as showed that God was 
with them? Who wrote the books of Judges, Ruth, Samuel, 
Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, and those of 
the Psalms which refer to the Babylonish captivity and other 
events of a far later date than David's reign ? If we know 
not who wrote these books, how can we know that their authors, 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 61 

worked miracles in proof of their divine and infallible inspira- 
tion ? Or, again, if Mark and Lnke, between them, wrote two 
of the four Gospels and the book of the Acts, what proof have 
we that either of those evangelists ever wrought one single 
miracle ? 

But let it be supposed, for the furtherance of our inquiry, that 
every sacred penman could be shown to have been a worker 
of miracles. Even this would not, according to the teaching 
of the Bible itself, demonstrate that God was with each pen- 
man ; for the Bible admits that miracles, or superhuman deeds, 
may be effected not only by Divine aid, but even by the agency 
of the devil. So, when Pharaoh* called the wise men and 
sorcerers of Egypt, and they did with their enchantments in 
like manner as did Moses and Aaron, was it a good spirit, or 
an evil, which gave miraculous power to Jannes and Jambres 
whilst they withstood Moses ?-J- Or, again, those false ChiistsJ 
that were to " show great signs and wonders," by whose in- 
spiration had they their powers ? The "man of sin,"$ too, is 
said to have had " his coming after the working of Satan, with 
" all power and signs and lying wonders ;" and one of the 
symbolic "beasts,"! in the Apocalypse, is described as "doing 
" great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven 
" on the earth in the sight of men, and deceiveth them that 
" dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which 
" he hath power to do :" and hi like manner, also in the same 
book, the three symbolic frogs IT are "the spirits of devils, 
" working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth 
" and of the whole world." 

Xow, on the face of this Scriptural evidence, is it not 
abundantly clear that, according to the teaching of the Bible 
itself, miracles afford no proof that he who works them is 
assisted by the God of truth, and therefore can neither He 
nor be in error ? 

Obviously, then, we must not rest on miracles as a proof of 
inspirational infallibility ; for it does not appear that all the 
Scripture-writers exercised miraculous powers ; and, even if 
this were quite an established point, it would only show, accord- 
ing to Scripture, that those writers were aided by some super- 
human agency, either divine or diabolical. 

* Exodus vii. 11. t 2 Tim. iii. 8. % Matt. xxiv. 24. 

§ 2 Thess. ii. 9. || Eev. xiii. 13. t Rev. xvi. 13, 14, 



62 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 



CHAPTER II. 

EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY FOR 
INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY. 

The next argument, which we shall consider, in favour of 
inspirational infallibility, is drawn from a subject akin to the 
miraculous, and is to be dealt with in a manner similar to that 
resorted to in the case of miracles. The prophecies which are 
contained in Holy Writ are referred to ; and it is argued that 
no man can utter true and real* prophecies except the all- 
knowing Spirit of God inform his mind, or guide his pen. The 
Bible, it is further urged with much force, contains, true and 
real prophecies ; and, therefore, the authors of the Bible must 
have had their minds informed, or their pens guided, by the 
Holy Spirit : and, moreover, it is not conceivable that the 
Almighty should have permitted the recorders of his oracles 
to insert aught of then' own errors in the same books in which 
they wrote the divine predictions. Hence a conclusion is 
drawn that the Bible is inspired and infallible. 

Now, here again, supposing the line of argument to be in 
itself allowable and satisfactory, is it certain that those Scrip- 
ture-writers, whose very names are, for the most part, undis- 
coverable, were all of them men who originated true and real 
prophecies? Even in the case of the New Testament, Paul 
and John may have been genuine prophets ; but what is there 
to make it probable that Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, Peter, 
or Jude, ever uttered a single real or true prophecy ? But, 
again, let us assume, for the sake of our argument, that it 
could be shown that every Scripture-writer had enunciated at 
least one indisputably marvellous prophecy. What effect would 
this concession have as a proof of inspirational infallibility ? 

Scripture itself teaches that such prophecies may come from 
a source widely separated from the God of truth. For instance, . 
it is the book of Deuteronomyf which tells us that a prophet, 
or a dreamer of dreams, may arise and give Israel a sign, or a 

* By a true prophecy, we mean one in accordance with a fulfilment : and by 
a real prophecy, we mean a prediction as opposed to a history. 
| Deut. xiii. l-o. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 63 

wonder, which, shall come to pass ; and jet the very object of 
that true prophetic sign may be to seduce Israel into the 
worship of false gods, so that it may become the bounden duty 
of the people, instead of hearkening to the words of that 
prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, to put him to death. 
Thus, it is manifest, that if every Scripture -writer could be 
proved to have uttered prophecies which the course of history 
had verified, or was now verifying, this would of itself be no 
guarantee to the believing student of the Bible that any 
Scripture-writer had not been a false, or a mistaken teacher. 

But it is not only with a general principle bearing on this 
point that Scripture supplies us. Numerous instances present 
themselves in the sacred pages, of wicked prophets, who 
strove to mislead men into sin, and yet were the means of 
giving true prophecies. In the New Testament, the case of 
Caiaphas is conspicuous. The inspired narrative informs us, 
that in a council, where the Pharisees were busy plotting 
against Jesus, Caiaphas used the words, " It is expedient for 
" us that one man should die for the people, and that the 
" whole nation perish not. 7 ' "This," says the same narrative, 
" he spake not of himself: but being high priest that year, he 
" prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation." Here 
then was, according to St. John's gospel,* a marvellous and 
true prophecy uttered by Caiaphas at the very moment when 
he was wickedly conspiring against the harmless and admir- 
able life of our blessed Lord. Who supposes that this true 
prophecy was a voucher for the infallibility of all that Caiaphas 
wrote or spoke ? Similarly, if all the canonical writers were 
known to have been true prophets, that would not prove all 
their writings infallible. 

The Old Testament, too, speaks of Balaam-j- as a prophet 
who foretold the coming of a star out of Jacob — the rising of 
a sceptre out of Israel — and the coming of one out of Jacob, 
who should have dominion. In these and similar forebodings, 
Balaam is represented, if not as foretelling the Messiah, at 
least as announcing, with a forecast of superhuman wisdom, 
the prevalence of Israel over Moab. Thus does the Old Tes- 
tament describe Balaam as a true prophet; and, moreover, 
there is everything to make it apparent that he, like Caiaphas, 
prophesied in the name of Jehovah, the true God. Yet it was 

* John xi, 50-52. f Numbers xxiv. 17-] 9. 



64 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

at this very time that Balaam "loved the wages of un- 
" righteousness;"* so that he " taught Balac tocastastumbling- 
" block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed 
" unto idols, and to commit fornication." -J- Balaam may have 
been a true prophet ; but who will say that his teaching was 
infallible, or free from all admixture of error ? 

And now, after noticing the prophets Caiaphas and Balaam, 
and after recognising the principle laid down in Deuteronomy, 
let us ask what reliance can be placed on the argument drawn 
from prophecy in support of inspirational infallibility ? If each 
book of the Bible contained a true prophecy, first uttered by 
the writer of the book, even this would evidently be far from 
showing that each book was infallible. 

* 2 Peter ii. 15. f Bev. ii. 14. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 65 



CHAPTER III. 

EXAMINATION OF THE ARGUMENT FROM THE AUTHORITY CLAIMED FOR 
SCRIPTURE BY THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. 

We now proceed to the most complicated and difficult part 
of our subject, the argument — namely, in favour of the Bible's 
infallibility, drawn from the authority claimed for Scripture by 
the writers of the New Testament. 

At the outset, let us see what this argument really is. The 
New Testament writings are assumed to be infallible. The 
New Testament writings state, or imply, that the Old Testa- 
ment writings are infallible. Thus it is, by some, supposed 
to be apparent that the whole Bible is infallible. Now, even 
supposing that it can be shown that the New Testament does 
assert the infallibility of the Old Testament and of itself, what 
proof can be given that the New Testament is not mistaken 
in this very matter? To this it is commonly replied, that 
miracles, prophecies, and our Lord's promises of the Spirit of 
truth, guarantee the infallibility of the New Testament writ- 
ings. But we have already seen that, on the showing of the 
Bible itself, miracles and prophecies utterly fail in proving the 
infallibility of their workers or enunciators ; and in a subse- 
quent part of this Book we shall take occasion to examine the 
promises of Christ which are said to bear on this point. In 
the meanwhile, let us here content ourselves with asking who 
guarantees the exact correctness with which these promises 
of Christ are recorded ? The only possible answer is, the 
New Testament writers. Thus, then, the New Testament 
writers guarantee the infallible accuracy of their own narration 
of our Lord's words of promise, and then those words of promise 
are supposed to guarantee the infallibility of the New Testa- 
ment writings. If this be not arguing in a circle, we know 
no instance of that fallacy. 

From these considerations it is clear that no weight can 
logically attach to the complicated argument, in favour of 
scriptural infallibility, which is drawn from the authority 
claimed for Scripture by the New Testament writers. It is 

F 



66 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

as futile as if one should say all the Pope's utterances must 
be infallible, because he himself claims infallibility as attaching 
to some of his sentences. But, not to press this point, let us 
look closely into the argument in question. The infallibility, 
said to be claimed for Scripture by the New Testament, pur- 
ports to be claimed either by the Jews, the disciples of Christ, 
or by Jesus himself. 



A. — The Opinion of the Jews on this Subject. 

In the case of the Jews what is to be said? Doubtless they 
did, for centuries after Christ, believe their Bible to be verbally 
inspired, and wholly infallible. To this testify the Masoretic 
diligence and exactness in counting and recording the number 
of scriptural books, words, letters, and even vowel points. 
And that this feeling prevailed among the people of Juda?a, at 
least as early as our Saviour's time, is abundantly apparent 
from many passages in the gospel history. For instance, the 
chief priests and scribes at once fixed on Bethlehem as neces- 
sarily the birthplace of the Messiah; "fur," said they, "thus 
" it is written by the prophet." The inspired seer, Micah, 
had so prescribed the will of God, and his writing — it was 
believed — could not err. Why not? Evidently because those 
priests and scribes partook of the prevailing national belief in 
the infallibility of Holy Writ. 



B. — The Opinion of the Evangelists. 

That the Evangelists, and indeed all the disciples of Christ, 
should hold this part of the Jewish creed, is what was natu- 
rally to be expected ; and, accordingly, the sympathy of the 
Evangelists in a reverence for the infallibility of the Old Tes- 
tament is largely shown by their well-known formulary, 
" Now all this was done that" (hina — in order that) " it might 
"be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet." 

Of course we do not regard the testimony of the Jews on 
this, or on any other subject, as a decisive and unquestionable 
authority : and the value at which the opinion of the Evange- 
lists on this subject is to be taken, must depend on the evidence 
which can be produced in proof of their infallibility ; but the 
point to be noticed here is, that our Lord's four biographers 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE { 67 

had their own minds strongly impregnated with this current 
Jewish notion. In their judgment, it was a part of piety to 
regard the Old Testament Scriptures as the unerring dictates 
of Jehovah ; so that we can well understand how, in depicting 
an historical portraiture of Jesus, they would delight in every 
possible opportunity of recording expressions, in which that 
holy One seemed to countenance their own favourite pre- 
conception. 



C. — Alleged Utterances of Jesus on this Subject. 

With these remarks, and supposing for the sake of our 
argument, that the four Gospels give us the " ipsissima verba " 
of our Lord, we proceed to enumerate and examine what we 
believe will be found to be fair and adequate specimens of the 
strongest declarations, in support of scriptural sanctity and 
authority, which Jesus is said to have uttered. 

Matthew, for instance, tells us that, in Christ's sermon on 
the Mount,* the words occurred, " Till heaven and earth pass, 
" one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all 
" be fulfilled ; ?? and again the divine preacher is represented as 
saying, " I am not come to destroy the law or the prophets, 
"buttofulfiL" 

The same Evangelist teLls us, how Jesus, rebuking the Jews 
for bidding defiance to the moral duty of filial kindness, said, 
" Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect 
"by your tradition/ ; f 

Similarly, too, in strong apparent support of inspirational 
infallibility, Jesus, arguing with the Jews as to the divine 
nature or the unique excellence of the Christ, asks them to 
explain how it is, if Messiah be David's merely ordinary 
human son, that " David in spirit calls him Lord ?"J Is it 
not here implied by Jesus that the inspired David could not 
err even in a word? Does not this saying of the Son of God 
prove even the verbal inspiration and infallibility of the Old 
Testament ? And, again, is not that other passage, from the 
Gospel of John, another convincing proof that our blessed 
Saviour held what is commonly called the highest doctrine of 
verbal inspiration; when he replied to his Jewish accusers by 
reminding them, that it could hardly be blasphemy for him to 

* Matt. v. 18. t Matt, xv. 6. % Matt. xxii. 43. 



68 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

" call himself the Son of God," since it was written in their 
law (Psalm Jxxxii. 6), " I said ye are gods." " If then," 
argues Jesns, " he called them gods nnto whom the word of 
" God came, and the Scripture cannot he broken, say ye of him 
" whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, 
"thou blasphemest because I said I am the Son of God?"* 
Do not these two texts plainly prove to every believer, that 
Jesus regarded the words of the Old Testament as infallibly 
inspired ? 

But, yet again, see how our Lord revered the words of the 
prophets. It was in the solemn night of his betrayal that he 
warned his apostles, saying,! " All ye shall be offended be- 
" cause of me this night, for it is written (Zech. xiii. 7), I will 
" smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be 
" scattered abroad." And it was at the same awful period 
that Jesus spoke of his power to call down twelve legions of 
angels for his deliverance ; | "but," he added, "how then 
" shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be ?" Do not 
these references to the prophets clearly indicate that, in the 
judgment of the Son of God, the Old Testament prophets spoke 
with an infallible prescience of the deepest mysteries of the 
divine will? 

These six quotations are, we believe, an adequate represen- 
tation of all which Jesus is reported to have said in support of 
Biblical infallibility. We have endeavoured to put them 
briefly, but yet with all the argumentative force they can bear. 
Let us now examine them in detail. 

The citation from the sermon on the Mount speaks of not a 
jot or a tittle of the law passing till all be fulfilled, and of 
Jesus as not being a destroyer but a fulfiller of the law. 

We will at once concede what it would be hard to prove — 
viz., that "the law" here denotes the Old Testament. One 
of the commands of that law (Exod. xxi. 24) is, " an eye for 
" an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Now, in what manner does 
Jesus proceed to deal with this precept ? Does he not say, 
" Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, a 
" tooth for a tooth : but I say unto you, That ye resist not 
" evil?" Does not Jesus abrogate this law of retaliation, and 
with it that other (Deut. xxiii. 6, 7) which permits, if it does 
not positively enjoin, the hating of an enemy ? And, having 

* John x. 35. t Ma tt. xxvi. 31. % Matt. xxvi. 54. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 69 

abrogated these, does not our Lord substitute for them the 
truly golden law which bids men love their enemies ? 

Such abrogation, or, if you choose, such "fulfilment" as 
this, is reconcilable with Jesu's declaration, if that declaration 
be modified so as to mean that the Saviour was no hasty 
revolutionist, hut that his object was to promote the holiness 
and piety of men, even as the Jewish lawgiver had desired to 
do. Only, Jesus would pursue this object by giving a better 
and more perfect law than that of the Old Testament. To 
abrogate thus was indeed to fulfil ; but it was a course wholly 
irreconcilable with the idea, that Jesus believed the Old 
Testament law infallible — that is, unmixed with error. To 
abrogate, or in any way to alter, that which is infallibly 
revealed by God, and infallibly recorded by man, must be to 
change it for the worse; and such a change the blessed Jesus, 
we are persuaded, never made in aught. 

Thus, whatever else may or may not be the signification of 
those conservative words about fulfilling and not destroying 
the law, they manifestly do not inculcate the doctrine of in- 
spirational infallibility. 

As to the next passage, that bearing on the duties of 
children to their parents, is not the precept, " Honour thy 
" father and thy mother," the commandment of God, in what- 
ever book it be written? Nay, was it not so awfully the 
commandment of God, hundreds of years before the law is said 
to have been given from Sinai, that Ham, according to the 
sacred historian (Gen.ix. 20-27), brought the curse of God upon 
himself and all his progeny, by dishonouring his father Noah? 
Surely, in whatever book it is written or not written, this 
duty of honour to parents is the commandment of God ; but it 
is hard to see by what reasoning it can be shown that such a 
duty being written in a book, and being spoken of in that 
book as God's precept, can prove the whole book to have been 
infalhbly inspired. 

In noticing the way in which Jesus quoted the 82nd and 
the 110th Psalms, in arguments with the Jews, we should 
never forget that these citations occur in arguments ; and not 
only so, but in hypothetical propositions. In the case of the 
82nd Psalm, Jesu's argument is, If you are right in saying 
that the Scripture cannot be broken, and if the Scripture call 
some men gods, with what justice can you accuse me of 
blasphemy, because I do something like that which your own 



70 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

sacred and, as yon acknowledge, infallible writings represent 
God as not only permitting others to do, but as actually him- 
self doing? Assuredly, here is no statement by our Lord that 
the Old Testament is infallible ; but, without expressing his 
own view on this subject, he appeals to his countrymen on 
their own most hallowed convictions. 

So, too, the 110th Psalm is only used conditionally. The 
argument in which it is referred to runs thus : — You say that 
your Scriptures teach you that Christ is to be David's son ; 
and also you say that the inspired, and therefore, according to 
your notions, infallible David called him Lord. If Christ 
were to be merely an ordinary human son of David, how can 
you account for David, than whom you know of no greater 
man, calling him Lord ? Must not this Lord of David's be 
something more than common humanity? Must he not be 
divine, or in some way a supereminently great man, if your 
idea of Scriptural infallibility is to be retained ? 

Here, again, Jesus appeals to the convictions of the Jews, 
without at all setting the seal of his divine approbation to 
those convictions, any more than Paul approved the worship 
of God as an " unknown" God, when he used that popular idea 
in order to convince and instruct the men of Athens. Before 
we leave this passage, however, we must notice that, in Luke's 
narrative of this same argument of Jesus with the Jews, there 
is a very marked and important variation of the phrase which 
our Saviour is said to have employed ; for, whereas Matthew 
makes Jesus quote the 110th Psalm, as what " David in spirit 
wrote," Luke* merely represents Jesus as introducing the 
quotation with the words — " David himself saith in the hook of 
"Psalms." Who shall tell us whether Matthew or Luke is, 
in this instance, the more exact in his version of what Jesus 
said? If the inspired Evangelist, Luke, be not incorrect, 
Matthew must be void of infallibility, for Luke, in this very 
important narrative, does not inform us that Jesus said any 
tiling about David being " in spirit." If Luke be incorrect, 
what becomes of his inspirational infallibility when he wrote? 
On such slender bases rests the enormous dogma of scriptural 
infallibility. 

The last savings of our Lord's, which we are to examine in 
order to see their bearing on Biblical infallibility, are those in 

* Luke xx. 42. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 71 

which the Gospel- writers describe him as teaching that " the 
" Scriptures must be fulfilled;" that is, that the events of his 
life and death must take a certain form, in order to tally with 
the destiny which the writings of the Israelitish prophets had 
prescribed for him. 

We are fresh from the perusal of texts from Matthew and 
Luke, which show how little we can be sure that, in the 
evangelical records, we have the precise and entire words of 
Christ. This consideration ought, if we have any love of 
truth, to weigh with us when we find difficult and improbable 
sayings put into the mouth of the wise and gentle Jesus by 
biographers who, we know, delighted in uttering such difficult 
and improbable sayings themselves. Is it not most likely 
that the Evangelists, as they thought one inapplicable pro- 
phecy fulfilled by Jesus being called out of Egypt, and 
another, which has no existence, fulfilled by his dwelling at 
Nazareth, so also thought that Zechariah wrote about the 
Messiah, and that what he so wrote must be fulfilled? 

But some reader may ask, why call these sayings difficult 
and improbable? We call them so for at least two good 
reasons. If Jesus, whom we believe to have been the infallible 
Son of God, did use these words as to the "must be" of what the 
prophets had written, then, indeed, a maddening puzzle would 
present itself to drive us into unbelief, when we found the 
infallible Jesus implying that a book was infallible which had 
in it palpable errors. This is one reason why we call every 
passage which ascribes to Jesus the idea of prophetic necessi- 
tarianism, difficult and improbable. Besides, Jesus cannot 
have been ignorant of the conditionality of all prophecy, as 
laid down by the prophets themselves. It was, surely, not 
without the knowledge of the Son of God that Jeremiah had 
written those words, which should be ever borne in mind by 
the students of prophecy,* — " At what instant I shall speak 
" concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, 
" and to pull down, and to destroy it ; if that nation, against 
" whom I have pronounced turn from their evil, I will repent 
" of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what 
" instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a 
" kingdom, to build and to plant it ; if it do evil in my sight, 
11 that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, 

* Jeremiah xviii. 7-10. 



72 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

"wherewith I said I would benefit them." Nor, again, can 
we suppose it to have been unknown to Jesus that the in- 
spired Ezekiel had laid clown the same principle of prophetic 
interpretation as applicable to the case of individuals not less 
than to that of nations.* " When I shall say to the righteous, 
" that he shall surely live ; if he commit iniquity he shall die 
" for it:" and " when I say unto the wicked, thou shalt surely 
" die ; if he turn from his sin, he shall not die, he shall surely 
"live." Now, let us ask what these passages mean, if they 
do not mean that all prophecy — that relating to individuals 
not less than that relating to nations — is conditional ? The 
answer to this question must acknowledge, that no divinely 
inspired prophecy binds man by an inevitable, iron destiny, so 
that, if the prophet of the Lord has denounced him, he must be 
cursed ; and, if the seer has blessed him, he must be blessed. 
Rather the teaching of Holy Writ, and of our hearts, is, that 
the most terrible denunciations are intended, in God's mercy, 
to stimulate man's repentance ; and the richest prophetic bless- 
ings are announced as an encouragement to human effort. 
-With a consciousness of these prophetic principles, so clearly 
enunciated by the prophets themselves, and so constantly 
illustrated by the histories of David and his descendants, by 
the narrative of Ahab's repentance and the consequent post- 
ponement of God's curse upon him, by Jonah's dealings with 
Nineveh, and by numberless other pages of the Old Testa- 
ment; with a consciousness of these principles, and their ever- 
recurring fulfilment, it is impossible to suppose that Jesus 
intended to declare that there was a " must be," or a compul- 
sory necessity, in the particular manner of his death for us. 
Did some texts inevitably destine Judas to be a traitor? Did 
others compel the apostles to flee and leave their Master in 
his peril ? Did others necessitate the hateful injustice of the 
Jews who accused Christ ? and did yet another set of predic- 
tions bind the Romans to condemn and crucify that just man ? 
If so, and if this was so spoken and so meant by our Lord, 
then he cannot have thought the Old Testament infallible, for 
he must have known that the prophecies declared themselves 
to be conditional ; and so, if he believed that they were truly 
inevitable, he must have known that they had erred in pro- 
nouncing themselves conditional. Thus, whether we have 

* Ezekiel xxxiii. 13-15. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 73 

the precise words of Jesus on the subject of prophetic neces- 
sitarianism or not, these passages, which profess to give us 
Ms precise words on that subject, can afford no proof of Scrip- 
tural infallibility : for, either they unintentionally misrepresent 
what Jesus said, and so are themselves an instance in proof 
of Biblical fallibility; or, else, they correctly state Jesu's words 
and views, and, on this supposition, the Lord himself contra- 
dicts, and so charges fallibility on the prophets for having 
declared their own forebodings to be conditional when, indeed, 
they were inevitable. 

We have now examined sis of the strongest and most 
varied instances we can find, in which Jesus is alleged to 
have attributed infallibility to the Scriptures. The argument 
drawn from this source seems to us wholly unsatisfactory. 
Jesus, doubtless, revered the marvellous and holy Bible of his 
nation ; he, doubtless, used it to persuade and convince the 
Jews, to whom he addressed himself. Knowing the sanctity 
and authority which the Lord attached to the law and the 
prophets, the disciples, who so long and so entirely failed in 
understanding the nature of .Messiah's kingdom, were easily 
betrayed into the idea that Jesus shared their own superstitious 
belief in Biblical infallibility ; and thus they represented him 
as using some expressions which, apart from the other evidence 
of the case, might lead us to suppose that the infallible Jesus 
sanctioned a belief in inspirational infallibility : but, viewed 
in connexion with the particulars we have just been laying 
before the reader, even these alleged sayings of our Lord have 
no weight as proof — indeed, on every conceivable hypothesis, 
they operate in direct disproof of the dogma of Scriptural 
infallibility. 

Whether Paul, or Peter, or any others of the New Testament 
writers, do or do not attribute infallibility to the Bible, the 
infallibility of these New Testament writers must first be 
established, before their dictum can justify us in assenting to 
a dogma which is contravened by numerous and palpable 
matters of fact. 

In a word, however much authority may be duly attachable 
to the Old Testament, and may be attributed to it in the New 
Testament, Infallibility is quite a different thing from authority; 
and the infallibility of "the Old Testament we hold to be neither 
proven nor provable from the New Testament. Neither proven 
nor provable, we say ; because, if we have not the exact 



74 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

sayings of Jesus, the New Testament is at fault, for it fails to 
give us an exact record of what it professes to narrate pre- 
cisely ; and, on the other hand, if we have the exact sayings 
of Jesus, they must be so interpreted as to contradict and 
charge error on those who laid down the prophetic canon of 
conditionality. And again we say, neither proven nor provable, 
because, at best, we have as yet no sufficient reason for believ- 
ing the New Testament infallible ; and, until its infallibility be 
established, its assertions of opinion, by whomsoever professing 
to have been uttered, will not suffice to prove the infallibility 
of the Old Testament. 

A point which naturally connects itself with this part of our 
argument is the scriptural use of the phrase, " the Word of 
" God." This phrase is manifestly often employed to desig- 
nate Our Saviour ; but it is also sometimes used to denote 
certain portions of Holy Writ : and the too common English 
understanding of the phrase is undoubtedly as a synonym for 
the Bible. Now, supposing it to be granted that the Bible 
does call itself the Word of God, and supposing it further 
granted that the Bible thus claims infallibility for itself by this 
phrase, this would evidently be the same kind of proof of in- 
spirational infallibility as is afforded by the Pope when he calls 
himself the Vicar of Christ, and means to prove by that title, 
that he is as infallible as we believe our Lord to have been. 
Thus this argument for scriptural infallibility is worthless even 
on the most favourable supposition. It may be interesting, 
however, to some of our readers to know, that the learned-are 
by no means agreed that the term " Word of God" is ever 
once used in Scripture as a designation of the Bible. Thus, 
for instance, a Professor, whose candour and learning show 
themselves to be equally admirable, lately used these words 
in preaching before the University of Cambridge — " Let not 
"the natural metaphor, by which men call a sacred record 
" 'the Word of God,' ever blind us to the fact, that no text 
" has been found, from Genesis to Revelation, in which this 
" holy name is made a synonym for the entire volume of Scrip- 
" ture." (Rational Godliness, by the Rev. Eowland Williams, 
B.D., p. 298.) 

With this statement of a fact we perfectly agree : and, at 
the same time, we believe that " the Word of God" is a name 
often applied to several portions of our Bible. But does this 
make it probable that even the portions so designated are 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 75 

infallible? Take the parallel expression, "Man of God," as 
it occurs in the Sacred Volume. Do we ever dream of assert- 
ing that Moses,* or Elijah,-]- or Shemaiah,J or the Prophet of 
Judah,§ were infallible or impeccable because they and many 
others are styled in Scripture " Men of God ?■" We do not 
doubt whether Adam or any of his descendants were the work 
of Gcd's hands ; and yet we believe our first father and all 
men since — him only excepted in whom the Spirit of God 
dwelt without measure — to have been both fallible and pec- 
cable. If works of God may be imperfect, and if "Men of 
God" may be fallible, how does the name " Word of God," 
applied to portions of a book written by the instrumentality 
of man, show us that even those very portions of that book 
are infallible ? This notion is obviously as untenable as those 
we have already examined and been compelled to reject. 

An arduous — we believe an impossible — task it will be for 
any pious mind to prove the infallibility of the Bible by the 
manner in which portions of that book are styled " the Word 
" of God," or by our Saviour's references to the Old Testa- 
ment; but, after all, if the task should seem to be per- 
formed, its accomplisher will only have argued in a circle, 
and thereby have wrought a chain of sand. The Old and 
New Testaments have sometimes been compared to a work in 
two volumes. How would it be with such a work, if we 
should assert its infallibility, and, in proof of our assertion, 
should urge that the second volume told us its own writer 
was likely to be infallible, and that the writer of the first 
volume was certainly infallible ? There would manifestly be 
no logical cogency whatever in this line of argument. What 
greater cogency belongs to the defence of Scripture infallibility 
which we have just been examining ? 

* Deut. xxxiii. 1. f 1 Kings xvii. 24, 

% ] Kings xii. 22. § 1 Kings xiii. 1. 



76 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 



CHAPTER IV. 

ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY, FROM THE 
SUPPOSED IMPOSSIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE WRITERS ASCERTAINING, 
BY NATCTRAL MEANS, MANY PARTICULARS OF WHICH THEY TREAT. 

Another reason for believing in inspirational infallibility, is 
sometimes based on the acknowledgment which is regarded 
as the only possible 'reply to the question — How, bnt by 
Divine illnmination, were the sacred penmen enabled to de- 
scribe scenes of which it is highly improbable, and sometimes 
impossible, that they should have been witnesses ? How, for 
instance, did Matthew and Luke arrive at a knowledge of the 
angelic visits and revelations to Elizabeth and her cousin 
Mary? Or, how did Moses describe the process of creation, 
most of whose parts were older than man ? Some argue that 
an account of all which Adam knew was handed down to 
Moses by the probably oral tradition of the several long-lived 
patriarchs who intervened. But, even on this supposition, 
how did Adam or Moses learn the mystery of the first five 
days' work? The common answer is, that wisdom and know- 
ledge for ascertaining all things which they could not know 
of themselves, but which they have recorded, were miraculously 
given to the holy men of old by inspiration ; and then it is 
urged — Was it probable that God should condescend to reveal 
these secrets to Moses, and yet that he should leave Moses 
free to make all manner of natural mistakes in recording this 
and other revelations which were given to him by the Spirit 
of God ? 

As far as the d, priori probability of a revelation, and no 
infallible record of it, is mixed up with this argument for 
inspirational infallibility, we shall deal with it under the 
general head of the a priori argument. At present our aim is, 
merely to show that an answer widely different from that 
already alluded to can be given to the question — How, but by 
Divine inspiration, could mysteries like the history of creation 
be known to the Bible writers ? 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 77 

A. — Evangelists Recording Scenes at which They were not 
Present. 

And first, with reference to the Gospels — How were Matthew, 
and Luke, and the other Evangelists, able to record speeches 
and conversations at which it is not pretended that they were 
present? There are obviously two conceivable modes in 
which they may have been provided with materials for their 
narrative. On the one hand, it is quite possible that by a 
miracle, or supernatural exertion of his almighty power, God 
may have taught the sacred penmen any secrets of the past 
which were known only to him. On the other hand, it is 
possible that the Bible writers may, like Livy or Herodotus, 
or any other ancient historian, have gathered their information 
from the traditions, oral or written, which were current either 
in the popular mind or in the literature of their clay. 

By which of these two modes did the inspired writers gain 
their information ? The variations and discrepancies which 
occur in the accounts of what was said by Jesus, or those 
around him, lead us to the supposition that human tradition, 
and not Divine dictation, was the source from which the Evan- 
gelists, at all events, drew their information. But this sup- 
position becomes a certainty, in our minds, when we find 
Luke, at least, informing his reader whence he drew the 
materials of his gospel. "Forasmuch," says he (Luke i. 1-4), 
" as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declara- 
tion of those things which are most fully believed among us, 
even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning 
were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, it hath seemed 
good to me also, having carefully traced out all things from 
the very first, to write them for thee, Theophilus, seriatim, 
in order that thou mightest know the certainty of those 
things wherein thou hast been instructed." 
On looking at this preface of Luke's history, there are 
several reflections which must arise in every thoughtful mind. 
For example, Luke's writing at all was a matter of " seeming 
" good," or of human judgment as to what was desirable; and 
this does not look like the urgent duty of recording what God 
was miraculously teaching. Luke's mode of preparing him- 
self for his task as a writer, was the natural one adopted by 
every prudent and honest author. He traced or followed out 
(parekolouthekoti, which is less correctly translated, " having 



78 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

" had understanding") the several events of the history he 
was to write. He chose the best accredited portions of the 
current narrative. His informants, like the informants of all 
his contemporaries, were eyewitnesses and ministers of the 
word. He says not a syllable of his having any other special 
source of information. He makes no reference to any instruc- 
tion which had been miraculously given to his companion 
Paul, and so transferred to him, He claims no inspirational 
infallibility. Yet, as he wished Theophilus to know the cer- 
tainty of those things in which he (Theophilus) had been 
instructed, would not the Evangelist, as a prudent man, have 
said, if he believed it, You may depend on the certainty of 
what I tell you, for I write, not on the information of men 
only, but under the infallible dictation of the Spirit of God ? 
That Luke should have omitted this source of Iris historical 
and religious knowledge, and named the other, is a kind of 
imprudence of which, wise men will be slow to suspect such a 
writer as Luke has proved himself to be. 

Similarly, in John's Gospel (John xx. 30, 31, and xxi. 24, 
25), in passages where you would expect the sanction of an 
infallible inspiration to be named, if it were true, you find no 
allusion to any such idea; but some early Christians, who 
wished to remind the reader on how high an authority this 
narrative of the Life of our Saviour rests, have appended to 
its last chapter the words, " this" (probably John) " is the 
" disciple which testifieth these things, and we" (of course this 
"we" could not be John himself only) "know that his testi- 
" moriT/ is true." Would not these corroborators of the fourth 
Gospel have been glad if they could, with a good conscience, 
have said that this gospel rested, not only on the human testi- 
mony of a loving eyewitness, but that it had been infallibly 
written by the beloved disciple under the especial guidance of 
the Holy Ghost? The omissions of all reference to such a 
sanction in this part of John's Gospel, and in Luke's preface, 
can only be accounted for on the supposition, that Luke him- 
self, and some of John's earliest and most admiring readers, 
had no idea that inspiration made an inspired person or his 
writing infallible, Thus, then, we conclude that these two 
Evangelists, and, like them, all the other New Testament 
writers, never dreamt of infallibility attaching to then books 
— never dreamt of the Spirit of God dictating their sentences ; 
but knew well, as one of them has said, that they carefully 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 79 

and honestly obtained the best information they could, and 
then piously employed the knowledge they had acquired. 



B. — Genesis describing Creation antecedent to Man's 
Existence. 

But, for the Old Testament writers, how did they obtain 
their materials ? If the Almighty had seen fit to reveal to 
Moses, or any one else, the history of creation before man's 
time, of course He could have made such a revelation, and He 
could thus have miraculously given knowledge to the author 
of the book of Genesis. We do not question the possibility 
of God's doing anything good ; but we are not prepared to 
believe this or any other miracle without some strong grounds 
of reason. And when we come to look at the alleged proofs 
that God did thus miraculously tell the writer of Genesis about 
the days which had gone by, we find that there is no proba- 
bility whatever in favour of such an idea. There is not one 
contemporary assertion that the writer of the Pentateuch ob- 
tained his materials by miraculous divine intervention. Moses, 
we are told, received the law miraculously on Mount Sinai. 
The Commandments were divinely written on two tables of 
stone. A pattern of the tabernacle was shown Moses during 
his forty days' sojourn on the Mount. But who wrote the 
whole history of the Pentateuch? How comes it that the 
two copies of the fourth commandment do not tally ? They 
cannot both have been exact copies from the tables of stone. 
If Moses wrote the Pentateuch, how is it that the death of 
Moses is recorded in that volume ? Unless the Pentateuch 
was composed after the beginning of Saul's reign, how is it 
that we have, not only regulations for Israel as a kingdom in 
Deut. xvii. 14 — 20, but even the words (in Gen. xxxvi. 31), 
" these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before 
" there reigned any king over the children of Israel " words which 
a recent critic has not unjustly called "an historical allusion 
" to the kings of Israel ?" We are fully persuaded that many 
of the words of Moses, and many precepts which Moses learned 
from Jehovah, are in the Pentateuch ; but why may not these 
instructions of Moses, together with any other extant ancient 
Jewish literature, have been compiled by some unknown writer 
during the time of the kings ? Are we warranted by any 



80 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

sufficient evidence in the belief that Joshua and Ezra intro- 
duced many additions or alterations into the Pentateuch, but 
that Moses wrote the greatest part of that sacred volume ? 
The only evidence to support that belief is the vaguest Jewish 
tradition of a comparatively recent date. But, again, the 
question recurs, how could the author of the Pentateuch, who- 
ever he was, have known such mysteries as the history of 
creation without a distinct revelation from heaven ? To this 
we reply that, from whatever source the various histories in 
Genesis may have been originally derived, it is quite clear that 
the author of the Pentateuch compiled his narrative from sundry 
older manuscripts of which he had gained possession. A 
tolerably unquestionable proof of this point, which rests on 
grounds as strong as can support any result of critical inves- 
tigation, may be seen by* the reader in Theodore Parker's 
English version of De Wette's Introduction to the Bible. 

At present we can only suggest to our reader the mode in which 
this point is established. It is observed that although the names 
Jehovah (translated " Lord"), and Elohim (translated " God' 7 ), 
and Jehovah Elohim (translated "Lord God"), are sometimes 
used, to all appearance, promiscuously in the Pentateuch ; yet 
there are to be found, especially in Genesis, long paragraphs 
in which the Deity is designated throughout by one, and only 
one, of these names. Thus there are whole chapters where 
Elohim (" God") is spoken of, and Jehovah ("Lord") is not 
mentioned. And again, there are whole chapters where the 
Deity is named as Jehovah (" Lord"), and is not once styled 
Elohim ("God"). Passages of the former kind are described 
by Hebrew scholars as "Elohistic," to distinguish them from 
the writings of the latter kind, which are known as " Jeho- 
vistic." 

It is remarkable that the Elohistic passages by themselves 
form a tolerably connected narrative, and the Jehovistic like- 
wise by themselves. And, moreover, it is found that there 
are often, in Genesis, duplicate narratives of the same event, 
of which one narrative is Jehovistic and the other Elohistic. 
The English reader may readily test this matter for himself 
in such cases as the following : — 

He will observe that one account of the creation is contained 
in the first chapter and in the first three verses of the second 
chapter of Genesis. Throughout all this passage he will find 
that "God" (in the Hebrew, Elohim) is the name for the Deity. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 81 

But from the fourth verse of Gen. ii. down to the end of the 
chapter, the term "Lord God" (in the Hebrew Jehovah Elo- 
him) is uniformly employed to denote the Creator ; and in all 
this passage we are furnished with an account of the creation, 
in many respects widely different from that contained in the 
first thirty-four verses of the book of Genesis. 

Similarly, a great part of the history of the Deluge is written 
in duplicate, with discrepancies between the two narratives. 
Let the reader compare, for instance, the Elohistic section in 
Gen. vi. 9-22, with the parallel Jehovistic section in Gen. 
vii. 1—5. 

Now, we put it to the English reader whether it is not highly 
probable — to the careful and candid Hebrew scholar whether 
it is not convincingly apparent — that the Pentateuch, instead 
of being written under the miraculous dictation of God, was 
compiled by some unknown author during the times of the 
Jewish monarchy, out of materials Jehovistic, Elohistic, Jehov- 
Elohistic, and Mosaic. How these materials originated, 
except to a slight extent in the case of Moses, we have no 
information ; but that the mysterious account of the creation 
was derived directly from God is now as improbable as any 
thing can be, when we see that it is given in duplicate, with 
variations, in the first four chapters of Genesis ; and that, 
instead of both coming from Moses, these two narratives have 
all the appearance of having been originally written by 
unknown authors at different periods, and of having been 
ultimately compiled, five hundred years after the epoch of 
Moses, by some third writer, whose name is wholly unknown 
to us. 

Thus, then, for the Gospels and for the Old Testament, there 
is every probability that the current traditions and literature 
of the several periods supplied the sacred penmen with those 
portions of their histories which seem, at the first glance, the 
least within reach of human inquiry or ingenuity. So little 
must we rely on the absence of all natural sources of informa- 
tion as a proof of inspirational infallibility. 



WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 



CHAPTEE V. 



ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY FROM THE 
EXCELLENCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF HOLY WRIT. 

We pass on to consider a fifth argument which is employed 
to prove the inspiration and so the infallibility of the Bible. 
The Scriptures, it is truly urged, have shown themselves of 
great excellence and power. They have made modern civi- 
lisation what Athens and the ancient world could never make 
it. On the revival of literature they purified society wherever 
the progress of the Keformation caused men to possess and 
read an open Bible ; while the re-discovered lore of Greece 
and Kome did not succeed in giving holiness, or even peace 
and virtue, to Florence, Rome, and Spain, because in those 
countries priestcraft succeeded in withholding the Bible from 
the people. The Scriptures, lovingly preached, have con- 
verted New Zealand from a haunt of cannibalism into a land 
of bounteous and intelligent industry. In these, and many 
other instances which cannot be gainsaid, the power and ex- 
cellence of the Bible are abundantly shown ; and then it is 
argued that the book, which has done and is doing so much 
good, must be from God, and therefore infallible. 

Now, that the Bible is (like every other good and perfect 
gift) from the Father of lights, we readily and most thankfully 
acknowledge — yea, we hope presently to show reasons for 
believing that the Bible is pre-eminently God's gift ; but we 
cannot see how this and its power and excellence show it to 
be infallible. 

A well- written treatise on vaccination would be a blessed 
boon from heaven to a people afflicted with the smallpox ; but, 
surely, neither its being God's gift, nor its excellence and 
power, would prove such a book to be infallible, or free from 
all error. Or, again, the force and excellence of an hydraulic 
engine are undeniable ; and no pious mind will refuse to 
acknowledge that it was by God's gift to man that such an 
agency was invented ; but who would dream of saying that 
the inventor of that agency, or any treatise in which he set 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 83 

forth — God helping him — his powerful and beneficent secret, 
was infallible ? So, in the case of the Bible, thankfully do we 
acknowledge its divine origin, its excellence, and its power ; 
but we are not prepared to say that its infallibility is thereby 
proved. Infallible it may be ; but, surely, excellence and 
power, which show that their possessor is from God, do not 
show that their possessor is infallible. Indeed, this argument 
for inspirational infalhbiHty is so transparently worthless, that 
an intelligent man would only resort to it in defence of a 
hopeless cause. 

But it may be said that the excellence of the Bible is moral 
and religious, and that this kind of excellence, being loftier 
and more akin to the goodness which our minds compel us 
to attribute to the Deity, proves that its originator, and, in 
a sense, the book which inculcates it, are divinely and em- 
phatically inspired. To this argument, fairly applied to all 
teachers and books which inculcate a surpassingly pure mo- 
rality and purifying religion, we are so far from objecting that 
we recognise and glory in its cogency. But, if it be urged 
that the morality and religion of the Bible contrast so wonder- 
fully with the degraded condition of morality and religion in 
all men except the writers of Scripture ; and, if on this ground 
it be argued that the sacred penmen could only have known 
and written such morality and such religion by the aid of an 
inspiration which made them or their books infallible, then we 
wholly deny the force of such an argument for inspirational 
infallibility ; and, in support of our denial, we point to the 
case of Socrates. Look at the morality and religion of that 
heathen man. See the confidence the dying Socrates had in 
God, in the Divine goodness, and in the purity and bliss of 
the future world, where, in the presence of the same gods 
whom he had adored on earth, he hoped to meet and again 
enjoy the society of all the departed souls of the good. We 
are far from saying that this morality and this religion are 
equal in degree to that of the Gospel. But, we say, look at 
the purity of this teaching, and contrast it with the hideously 
base immorality, and with the degrading superstitions of the 
society in which Plato wrote and Socrates lived, and then tell 
us, if comparative moral excellence prove the Bible inspired 
so as to be infallible, why the same consideration should not 
prove the writings of Plato or of Socrates also infallibly in- 
spired. Until we are better informed on this subject, we shall 



84 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

persist in holding it most true that excellence in any particu- 
lar — physical, moral, or religious — is an effect of God's mercy 
and goodness, and a proof of his beneficent presence and co- 
operation ; but, at the same time, we shall continue to believe 
that excellence and power are wholly different from, and of 
themselves by no means imply, the presence of infallibility. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 85 



CHAPTEE VI. 

ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY FROM SCRIPTURAL 
CANONICITY. 

We shall next examine the argument in support of Scrip- 
tural infallibility which is derived from the Canonicity of 
Scripture. This plea for infallibility is of constant use among 
the people, as well as among theologians. If one be asked, 
Why do you believe that woman was made out of man's rib ? 
the answer is, Because the Bible, or the book of books, the 
greatest of all books, which is my rule (canon) of faith, tells 
me so. How constantly do men assume that such and such a 
statement cannot be erroneous, because it rests on the authority 
of the Bible ! Well, but let us inquire what gives the Bible 
such unerring or infallible authority ? Some men tell you its 
inspiration ; others tell you its canonicity. Some say inspira- 
tion proves any book to be canonical ; and with the next breath 
they proceed to assert that canonicity proves any book to be 
inspired. We deal at present, however, with those who more 
consistently maintain that the canonicity of any writing, or 
its having been admitted as one of the books of the Bible, 
proves its inspiration, and by consequence, as is supposed, its 
infallibihty. 

This argument goes on the supposition that we are certainly 
assured that great skill and care were exercised, in discerning 
between inspired and uninspired compositions, before any work 
was admitted by the Jews into their Old Testament, or by the 
Christians into then New Testament. 



A. — The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha. 

Now, with regard to the Old Testament, what do we know 
of the reception of any of its books into the Jewish Bible ? 
Who can tell us why Judges, or Esther, or Canticles, are con- 
sidered canonical books ? Who can show reason why the 
Book of the Wars of the Lord,* the Book of the Manner of 

* Numbers xxi. 14. 



86 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

the Kingdom,* which Samuel wrote and laid up before the 
Lord, and at least thirteen other Books,-}- which are referred to 
in Scripture as writings of more or less sacred authority, are 
not found in the Canon of the Jewish Bible ? 

And, on the other hand, there are books called apocryphal, 
like the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, which contain, con- 
fessedly, much useful and devout instruction, and which have 
been, from a period of very early Christian antiquity, quoted 
by ecclesiastical writers of various schools, with little or no 
less reverence than those of our Canonical Scriptures. What 
valid reason can be assigned for these apocryphal books being 
excluded from the Old Testament ? 

Is it known to us all, that many of the early Christian 
writers made citations from the Apocrypha just in the same 
manner as they did from the Old and New Testaments ? Do 
we know that the English Reformers were content to designate 
some at least of the Apocrypha as " the saying of Almighty 
God by the Wise Man,"j: and as the "Scriptures?" Do we 
all of us consider that these superlative titles are to this day 
more or less sanctioned, in the Established Church of England, 
as designating the Apocrypha, as is evident from their occurring 
in the Book of Homilies, which every clergyman is directed 
to read to his congregation on any occasion when it may be 
right to preach, and he may not be provided with a sermon 
of his own ? Thus, notwithstanding the marked disrespect of 
some modern theologians for the Apocryphal writings, the 

* 1 Sam. x. 25. 
f J. The Book of Jasher, vide Joshua x. 12; 2 Sam. i. 18. 

2. Solomon's Proverbs, Songs, and Natural History, vide 2 Kings iv. 32, 33. 

3. The Acts of Solomon, vide 1 Kings xi, 41. 

4. Chronicles of Israel, vide 1 Kings xiv. 19; xvi, 5, 20, 27; &c. 

5. Chronicles of Judah, vide 1 Kings xv. 7. 

6. The Books of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, vide 1 Chron. xxix. 29. 

7. A copious Life of Solomon, by Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo, vide 2 Chron. 

ix. 29. 

8. Acts of Rehoboam, vide 2 Chron. xii. 15. 

9. Life of Uzziah. vide 2 Chron. xxvi. 22. 

10. The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, vide 2 Chron. xxviii. 26; 

xxxv. 27 ; xxxvi. 8. 

11. The Book of Jehu, vide 2 Chron. xx. 34. 

12. Life of Hezekiak. by Isaiah, vide 2 Chron, xxxii. 32. 

13. Life of Manasseh, in the Book of the Kings of Israel, vide 2 Chron. xxxiii. 

18. 
These and other sacred but lost, or not canonical, hooks are enumerated in 
treatises on the Old Testament Canon; e. g., Moses Stuart, pp. 159 — 171. 
X Homilies, pp. 65, 90, (Oxf. Edit. 1844.) 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 87 

early Christians, many of our Eeformers, and the standard 
Homilists of the English Church, have no very clearly marked 
boundary line between the Apocrypha and the Canonical 
writings ; and it is from this sufficiently clear, that the so- 
called Christian fathers, many of the Eeformers, and the 
authorities of the English Episcopal Church, could not recog- 
nise any weight as attaching to the argument that the canoni- 
city of any writing establishes its inspirational infallibility ; 
for all these parties — if they did not entertain very distinct or 
satisfactory views regarding Inspiration — yet well knew the 
difficulties in which the whole subject of the Canon is envelop- 
ed, and that it rather needs support and elucidation for itself 
than is able to prove, or to uphold, any theory of Inspiration. 

But, moreover, if, from what Christians have thought about 
the canon as bearing upon inspiration, we turn to the history 
of the canon itself, we shall find such gloomy obscurity cover- 
ing this wmole subject, that we shall be compelled — however 
unwillingly — to own that inspirational infallibility must rest 
on some better support than the canonicity of Scripture, or it 
will not be maintainable at all. For the Old Testament the 
case stands thus : — From Genesis to Malachi, we hardly know 
who wrote one book. We know nothing as to the reasons for 
which, or the person by whom, any book was admitted into 
the Hebrew Scriptures. The tradition, that Ezra settled the 
canon, rests on no contemporaneous history; and, if it did, we 
are not supplied with any information as to the criteria upon 
which Ezra proceeded — whether he canonized all the then 
extant portions of Hebrew literature, which would account 
for books having a place in the Old Testament which never 
mention God or piety ; or, whether he rejected some parts of 
his national literature, and only canonized books of some cer- 
tain quality or character. 

The earliest positive information we have about the Jewish 
canon is as late as b.c 160, and is found in the preface to the 
apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus. This information merely 
goes so far as to tell us, that besides the law and the prophets, 
there had been other writers who had followed their steps, and 
had composed Hebrew books of learning and wisdom. Among 
these — and apparently considered quite on a par with them — 
was Jesus, the grandfather of Sirachides, of whose book of 
Ecclesiasticus his grandson apologizes for giving a Greek 
translation which, as a translation, must of necessity be 



88 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

inferior to the original Hebrew. These words of Sirachides 
manifestly suggest a very comprehensive theory for the for- 
mation of the canon ; for they admit at least one apocryphal 
work into the Jewish Bible, and they are far from making that 
a final admission. 

Our next informant is Josephus, who speaks of three classes 
of Hebrew canonical Scriptures : first, the five books of Moses ; 
secondly, the thirteen books of the prophets, whose writings 
extend from the time of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes ; 
and thirdly, four books which contain hymns to God and rules 
of life for men.* Josephus then adds — " From the time of 
" Artaxerxes, moreover, till the present period, all occurrences 
" have been written down ; but they are not regarded as en- 
11 titled to the like credit with those which precede them, 
" because there was no certain succession of prophets." So 
then Josephus makes the Jewish canon depend on a " certain 
" succession of prophets ;" and yet he owns that, for about 
400 years before his own time, such a succession had failed. 
During all that interval, who guarded the sacred writings 
from corruption ? And is it not manifest that, subsequently 
to the days of Joshua, and prior to the time of Samuel, there 
had similarly been no "certain succession of prophets?" 
Besides, even after Samuel, during the 500 years before the 
Babylonish captivity, when we know there were occasion- 
ally great prophets arising, what security can we have that 
there was a certain and unbroken succession of prophets? 
At all events, no such prophetical succession, with charge 
over the canon and the sacred writings, is alluded to in the 
Bible. 

It is not a little observable that neither Sirachides nor 
Josephus furnish us with any catalogue of the Jewish Scrip- 
tures ; and Philo Judgeus, our next informant, leaves us still 
more in the dark as to what he knew or even thought of the 
canon. Indeed, it is not till nearly 200 years after Christ, 
that Melito, the Christian Bishop of Sarclis, gives us a some- 
what detailed list of the books which in his time were re- 
garded as constituting the Hebrew canon. Melito's list is 
remarkable as omitting the Book of Esther, and as apparently 
including a book called the Wisdom of Solomon. About the 
middle of the third century, Origen, as quoted by Eusebius 

* Joseph, cont. Ap. i. 8. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 89 

towards the middle of the fourth century, gives the second 
list of Old Testament books which has reached us. This 
catalogue is remarkable, as first stating that there were 
twenty-two books in the Hebrew Bible, then enumerating 
only twenty-one books, and then adding (as it were to make 
up the twenty-second volume) " besides these" (exo teuton) 
" there are the Maccabaical writings." As the volume of 
the twelve lesser prophets is not enumerated in Origen's list, 
we may either suppose that transcribers have dropped this 
which was his twenty -second volume, or we may suppose 
(which seems far more probable) that Origen purposely groups 
the twelve minor prophets with some, if not all the Apocrypha, 
and then gives the general term Maccabaic writings to this 
twenty-second volume which he attaches to the other twenty- 
one by the expression "besides these." It is Eusebius, in his 
history written as we have said in the fourth century after 
Christ, who gives us these catalogues from Melito and Origen. 

From the beginning of the fourth century there is no lack 
of Old Testament catalogues. They manifest such slight 
deviations from one another, and from our present received 
Old Testament canon, as show that the Christians of those 
days were not prepared to give any very exact or unanimous 
account of this matter. 

There is thus sufficient evidence to make it moderately 
probable, that our Old Testament tallies in the main with the 
ancient Hebrew canon; but, when men begin to prove so 
stupendous a miracle as the infallibility of Holy Writ by its 
canonicity, there is every thing to make us feel that the case 
for the Canon is scarcely able to stand erect and support its 
own weight, and that it is wholly incompetent to bear such a 
superstructure as that of inspirational infallibility. See, for 
instance, the way in which the subject of the Canon is con- 
fused, and the satisfactoriness of our common notions on that 
subject is shaken, by the fact that the Alexandrian Jews used 
a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which we still pos- 
sess, and which we call the Septuagint ; that this Septuagint 
is the book from which nearly all quotations are adduced in 
the New Testament; and that this Septuagint, or Alexandrian 
Old Testament, included Ecclesiasticus and many other books 
which we style apocryphal. Or, again, when it is attempted 
to deduce such a consequence as infallibility from canonicity, 
we should remember that Melito and Origen (from a.d. 170 to 



90 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

a.d. 230) furnish the first extant catalogues of the Old Testa- 
ment scriptures, and that these catalogues are far from being 
exact in their agreement. 

Thus the canonicit y of the Old Testament will hardly prove 
its inspiration or its mfallibility. 



B. — The New Testament Canon. 

If we look to the case of the New Testament, we find that 
the Apostolic fathers generally quote sayings of Jesus as such, 
without professing to extract them from any of our canonical 
writings. This they do just in the same way as Paul quotes 
the saying of our Lord, " It is more blessed to give than to 
u receive."* Indeed it is evident that, in the first Christian 
century, what Luke says in his preface was strictly true, that 
" Many had taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of 
" those things which were most surely believed among" the 
Christians ; and there is every appearance which can make it 
probable that from these numerous and uncanonical Gospels 
the very earliest extant Christian writings make their quota- 
tions at least as readily and frequently as from any of our 
canonical New Testament books. 

When the four Gospels were written, or when they first 
received a degree of general reverence that was conceded to 
no other biographies of Jesus, we cannot exactly say ; but 
there is much ground for believing that this did not take place 
in the first century of our era ; and, on the other hand, it is 
probable that, by the middle of the second century (that is by 
a.d. 150), the four Gospels and the greater and more impor- 
tant portion of the Epistolary Scriptures were held in the very 
highest estimation. This appears frorn the works of Justin 
Martyr, Tatian, and others who wrote in the second half of 
the second century, as compared with the more genuine com- 
positions of the Apostolic Fathers, who wrote towards the end 
of the first century. But now, if we come to inquire what 
criteria guided the minds of the early Christians in the exclu- 
sion or admission of books into the Canon, all seems dark and 
unsatisfactory. Why four gospels, and only four, were re- 
garded as canonical, we know not, unless, indeed, any man 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 91 

can make up his mind to rely upon such fantastic reasons as 
are given by one of the Fathers, who tells us there were four 
gospels because there are four quarters in heaven whence the 
winds come, and because, in Ezekiel's vision (Ezek. i. 4-10), 
the "living creatures" had four "likenesses of their faces," 
viz., a man supposed to represent Matthew, a lion representing 
John, an ox symbolic of Luke, and an eagle typifying Mark. — 
Iren. adv. Hceres. hi. 11. 

That Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, wrote the composi- 
tions attributed to them, we believe, merely because those 
compositions bear their names, which is but little proof, when 
it is remembered that, early in the history of the Church it was 
held to be no fault, but an allowable if not a praiseworthy, pious 
fraud, to pass off any writing, that could be useful, as coming 
from the hand of an Apostle or some companion of the Apos- 
tles. Who the three first evangelists were we have only the 
vaguest tradition to inform us. Why books which were read 
in the Christian congregations and highly esteemed, like the 
first Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the other 
writings of the Apostolic Fathers, should have been ultimately 
excluded from the Canon, it is not easy to explain, especially 
when it is remembered, that down to the days of Eusebius 
(a.d. 320) and indeed much later, the gravest doubts were 
entertained as to the canonicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
the Epistle of James, the second Epistle of Peter, the second 
and thud Epistles of John, the Epistle of Jucle, and the Keve- 
lation of John. So much, and far more, of confusion and uncer- 
tainty hangs over the history of the New Testament Canon 
no less than the Old. 

We have not attempted an examination of the subject of the 
Canon of Scripture, for that is not our present theme ; but we 
have probably seen enough to show us how much difficulty 
and obscurity environ this very important subject : and we 
have perhaps seen enough to show us that the broad distinction 
between canonical and uncanonical writings is one set up by 
the dogmatic definitions of man rather than by the actual 
differences which sever the two classes of composition. At 
all events, we have taken a sufficient ghmpse at the history 
of the Canon to convince us that the inspiration and infallibility 
of the Bible must be proved by some other evidence, or it will 
never rest securely on the canonicity of Scripture. 

Connected with this argument concerning canonicity is a 



92 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

feeling which, we can readily understand, will arise in some 
minds. What, it may be said, do you tamper with the canon 
of Scripture ? Would you venture to add Ecclesiasticus to 
the Old Testament, and, possibly, to subtract the Epistle of 
Jude from the New ? Do you not remember that the last book 
in the Bible terminates with the words : " If any man shall 
" add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues 
" that are written in this book ; and if any man shall take away 
"from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take 
" away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy 
"city, and from the things which are written in this book?" 
Do you dare, in the face of this denunciation, to say that the 
history of the canon of Scripture is dark and full of doubt ? 

Our answer to such a challenge is, that we are convinced 
the system of addition and diminution alluded to in this passage 
of the Apocalypse, is that which takes place when men per- 
versely interpret the record of this vision in such ways that 
it may seem to condemn any good which God has not con- 
demned, or to excuse any evil which the God of truth has 
condemned. If any man wilfully distort this book, in order 
to make it square with his own wicked or uncharitable preju- 
dices, then such an one — and we would fain hope there 
never was such an one — seems to us to incur this dread 
denunciation. At all events, whatever else this passage may 
mean, no man of ordinary information can suppose that the 
writer of the Apocalypse framed his words as a conclusion of 
the Bible, and to put a seal on the New Testament canon ; 
for it is well known and all but universally acknowledged 
that — if it be not certain that the Apocalypse was one of the 
very earliest of the New Testament writings, composed in the 
reign of Nero — at least it was far from being the latest New 
Testament writing. Indeed, the popular notion — as shown in 
Nicholls' Help to Reading the Bible, and in many similar 
works — represents the Apocalypse as having been composed 
by John before his Epistles and before his Gospel. But, on this 
supposition, John would, according to our objector's idea, have 
excluded himself from the book of life, for he, subsequently to 
penning the book of the Revelation, " added unto those things" 
by writing three letters and a gospel. Besides, it is not only 
in the New Testament that we meet with such a passage as 
our objector urges against us. In Deuteronomy (iv. 2) we 
read — " Ye shall not add unto the word which I command van. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 93 . 

"neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye may keep 
"the commandments of the Lord yonr God which I command 
"you." Now, if the text in Bevelation closed the canon of 
the New Testament, must not its parallel in the Pentateuch 
have likewise closed the more ancient canon ? And, if so, by 
what right do any compositions, save the so-called five books 
of Moses, claim a place in the Jewish Canon ? 

Thus manifestly does our objector's interpretation destroy 
the canonicity of some of the New Testament writings, and 
of most of the Old Testament. We hope he will try our 
interpretation of Kev„ xxii. 18, 19 ; but, whether he will do 
this or not, his argument against us plainly fails. 



94 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 



CHAPTER VII. 

THE PROMISES BY WHICH OUR LORD IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE GUARAN- 
TEED THE INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Our next inquiries will be directed to an investigation of 
the promises by which Jesus is said to have guaranteed in- 
fallibility to the New Testament writers. 

The first of these promises is recorded by Matthew.* It is 
to the effect that the twelve shall be put on trial in course of 
persecution, but that they need take no thought how or what 
they shall speak for " it shall be given you in that same hour 
" what ye shall speak, for it is not ye that speak, but the 
" Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." 

This we regard as a most important passage in its bearing 
on our present subject. Let us notice it with an exactness 
proportioned to its importance. On comparing the narratives, 
given by Mark and Luke, of the events connected with this 
discourse of our Lord, it is evident that Jesus was preparing 
his twelve apostles for a temporary separation from himself 
during which they were, in six parties of two each, to preach 
exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This 
mission was committed to the twelve, and was discharged by 
them as we learn from Mark and Luke. In their missionary 
progress Jesus forewarned them that they would " be brought 
"before governors and kings" (the rulers and authorities then 
holding power in Palestine) " for his sake, for a testimony 
" against them and the Gentiles." It is in prospect of these 
immediately impending trials that Jesus gives the twelve 
such a clear and full promise of Divine inspiration which 
should, without effort on their part, enable them for their 
defence. The gospels give us no detailed account of the 
manner in which this promised inspiration wrought in the 
twelve during their experimental journey, nor are we told 
what special occasion any of the six different parties had for 
its use. But this is clear that, some time before the death of 
Jesus, a temporary separation took place between him and 

* Matt. x. 19, 20 ; Mark vi. 7, &c. ; Luke ix. 1 , &c. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 95 

his disciples, and prior to that separation he gave them a 
distinct promise of inspiration which was to be immediately 
needful and immediately available for them. 

Now, if inspiration made the twelve infallible, how was it 
that, besides manifold other errors and sins, the Apostles re- 
mained ignorant, till long after the death of Christ, of the 
plain meaning of those explicit terms in which the Lord fore- 
told to them his death ? If it be replied, as doubtless it may 
be, that this promise was special and only insured the inspira- 
tion of the Apostles (and their consequent infallibility) while 
they were actually defending themselves against persecutions 
in the courts of the Jewish and Eoman authorities, we would 
only rejoin — Well, let the same measure of criticism be dealt 
out to the other promises of Jesus, and you will be in a fair 
way to destroy all claim to inspiration on the part of Mark, 
Luke, and Paul ; for, according to this strict mode of dealing 
with the letter of Christ's promises, these holy men never 
appear to have received any special promise of inspiration. 

But few sober earnest-minded men will, we think, be dis- 
posed to play fast and loose in this manner with inspiration, 
which they regard as implying the infallibility of the inspired. 

Another promise of Jesus is recorded by Luke, which in 
many points resembles that which we have just been consider- 
ing. It is given in these terms :* " When men bring you unto 
" the synagogues and unto magistrates and powers, take ye 
" no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye 
" shall say, for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same 
" hour what ye ought to say." Here again we have a pro- 
vision of inspired defence against times of persecution. In 
this respect this promise, like the former, may be said 
to have been special : but what we would notice in this 
promise is, that it is addressed to vast masses of listeners, for 
the Evangelist introduces the discourse with the words, 
" When there were gathered together an innumerable multi- 
" tude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, 
" Jesus began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware 
"ye," &c. Accordingly the discourse is at first chiefly ad- 
dressed (down to the seventh verse of the chapter) to those 
who were already Christ's "friends." In the eighth verse, 
however, the address becomes evidently more general. The 

* Luke xii. 1-13. 



96 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

early part had been spoken in the hearing of the multitude, 
though directed chiefly to the " disciples ;" but in the eighth 
and following verses the address is as general as words can 
make it. " Whosoever" is the phrase which occurs twice in 
three verses, and then, in the two next verses, follow the 
words of inspirational promise already quoted. In the midst 
of his discourse the thirteenth verse tells us that " one of the 
" company" interrupted Jesus with some selfish question. 

Thus there is the strongest evidence or, rather, there is the 
clearest statement that in this case Jesus promised inspiration 
to any man "whosoever," for the gospel's sake, should "be 
" brought unto the synagogues and magistrates and powers." 
Now let this promise be made as special as it can. Confine 
it, if you will, to an assurance of the Spirit's aid being given 
to Christian disciples in the time of their judicial trial only. 
Still there is, in the history of the Acts of the Apostles, pre- 
cisely such a set of circumstances described as that under 
which this promise guaranteed inspiration. We can accord- 
ingly examine the defence of the deacon Stephen before the 
Jewish Sanhedrim, and see, at all events, what this promised 
inspiration did not do for him. The Christian protomartyr, 
after speaking "by the Spirit" in such a way as confuted his 
Jewish adversaries, was brought before the council for the 
testimony he had borne to Jesus of Nazareth. Stephen was 
set on his defence.* His speech was interrupted and his life 
cut short by the violence of his enemies. Assuredly here, if 
any where, was a man to whom, and a posture of affairs in 
which, the promise should be fulfilled, "the Holy Ghost shall 
"teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say." 

Now, by the evidence of the first sixteen verses of Stephen's 
speech, how stands the dogma of inspirational infallibility? 

Not to lay stress upon the apparent discrepancy between 
Stephen's statement that the call of Abraham was prior to the 
patriarch's leaving Mesopotamia, and the narrative in Genesis 
which represents the call as if it had been subsequent to 
Terah's change of residence from Ur of the Chaldeans -to 
Haran or Charran, the inspired protomartyr says that God 
" gave" Abraham " none inheritance in" the land of promise, 
" no, not so much as to set his foot on." The Book of Genesisj 
records that " the field of Ephron, and the cave which was 

* Acts vii. f Genesis xxiii. 17, 18. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 97 

" therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in 
" all the borders round about, were made sure unto Abraham 
" for a possession" in the most public and binding manner. 

Stephen says, " God spake on this wise, That his seed should 
" sojourn in a strange land, and that they should bring them 
"into bondage and entreat them evil 400 years." This quo- 
tation appears to have been drawn from Genesis fxv. 13—16) : 
but the Book of Exodus (xii. 40) tells us with great exactness, 
even using the expression, " the selfsame clay it came to pass," 
that " the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt was 
430 years." 

Once more, Stephen says, " Joseph called his father Jacob 
" to him and all Iris kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." 
The Old Testament, in two different passages (Gen. xlvi. 27 ; 
Deut. x. 22), assures us that " all the souls of the house of 
" Jacob which came into Egypt were threescore and ten." 

Yet again, Stephen says, " So Jacob went down into Egypt 
" and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over into 
" Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for 
" a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem." 
In direct contradiction to two assertions in this passage, the 
Old Testament informs us that Jacob* was most solemnly 
buried, not at Sychem, but " in the cave of Machpelah," near 
Hebron ; and moreover-}- that it was "Jacob," and not Abra- 
ham, who " bought a parcel of a field at Shechem from the 
" children of Hamor, Shechem's father." 

Now we shall carry the convictions of every attentive, honest 
mind with us when we assert that this speech of Stephen's 
was inspired, if Christ's promise was ever fulfilled, or ever 
meant to be fulfilled at all. Of course, if any man say Stephen's 
speech was inspired, but Luke does not report it exactly, such 
an assertion denies the infallibility of the Book of the Acts, 
and so, we take it, concedes that an inspired writing may err. 
But we address ourselves to the so-called orthodox, most of 
whom now-a-days believe that inspiration makes the Bible 
infallible. They believe the Book of the Acts to be inspired, 
and therefore infallible. They believe that Stephen's speech 
is correctly reported to us ; and, we are persuaded, they believe 
Stephen was, as Scripture asserts,^ a man " full of the Holy 
" Spirit," and that his speech was inspired. Yet in its first 

* Genesis! 13. t Genesis xsriii. 19. J Actsvi. 5. 

H 



98 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

sixteen verses we have seen five or six contradictions of the 
Old Testament history. Are we prepared to say that the Old 
Testament is at fault, and so do we give up the idea of infalli- 
bility as attaching to the Jewish Scriptures ? or shall we own 
that the inspired Stephen, in his most exalted moment of 
inspiration, when he was a fearless martyr for his dear Lord 
and ours — when his countenance shone with more than human 
brightness on his assailants — when he prayed for his wicked 
murderers, " Lord, lay not this sin to their charge" — was even 
then liable to confusion of thought and shortness of memory, 
and so misquoted his own Scriptures ? Or shall we say, as 
seems most probable, that Stephen was not likely, even in the 
haste and confusion of addressing a riotous rabble, to make so 
many misquotations from the holy Scriptures, but that Luke, 
in collecting the records for his history, may easily, either 
consciously or unconsciously, have left errors in this speech, 
just as they had been penned by some unlearned Christian 
from whose document Luke transcribed them, either without 
observing their want of agreement with the Old Testament, 
or, if he did perceive this, thinking it more honest to leave 
them as they were shown in the document of whose general 
trustworthiness he was satisfied. 

One of these three suppositions is inevitable — either the 
inspired Old Testament, or the eminently inspired speech of 
Stephen, or the inspired historian Luke, is in error. Which- 
ever alternative may most commend itself to our judgment the 
idea of inspirational infallibility, as resting on our Saviour's 
promise or on any other ground, will be alike refuted. 

But we pass to the consideration of another class of our 
Lord's promises, which are sometimes urged as guaranteeing 
the infallible inspiration of the Twelve Apostles, and there- 
fore, by some strange sequence of causation, of all the New 
Testament writers and only of them. Jesus, it is argued, said, 
" As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also 
" sent them into the world." Was not Jesus an infallible 
teacher ? it is asked, and, if so, must not the Apostles also have 
been infallible teachers ? We answer that it might as well be 
put thus : Jesus was a sinless teacher, therefore his Apostles, 
whom He sent as He himself was sent, were, like him, sinless. 
The infallibility of inspiration cannot be proven thus. 

But, again, Jesus said to his Apostles,* " Whatsoever ye 

* Matt, xviii. 18. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 99 

u shall bind on earth shall be bonnd in heaven, and whatso- 
" ever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven:" 
and He said nnto them, " Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost : whose 
"soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and 
"whose soever sins ye retain they are retained."* And 
moreover He promised to be " with them alway even unto 
the end of the world." -j- These and many other such assur- 
ances did our Lord leave with his Apostles. Well then, it is 
urged, do not such grand promises as these justify us in be- 
lieving that, as teachers of religion at all events, if not as 
historians and geographers, and men of science, the Apostles 
must have been so inspired as to be free from all actual error, 
that is, so inspired as to be infallible ? Now let this question 
be fairly looked at. Who among the Apostles was more with 
Jesus than Peter ? Who had a weightier or more direct 
charge given to him to feed the sheep and the lambs of 
Christ's flock? Who but he was to strengthen his brethren 
when he had been converted after the denial of his Master ? 
Was it not he to whom especially the power of binding and 
loosing (whatever that power may have been) was given? 
Was it not he who, apparently even more than his associate 
John, took part in edifying the infant church of Christ on and 
after the day of Pentecost ? 

Peter, though no lord over the heritage of God, was con- 
spicuously eminent as an Apostle of Jesus, so that he, if any, 
would be sure to be infallibly inspired. But what do our 
Protestant friends most truly and most scripturally say to the 
Eoman Catholic assertion of Peter's infallibility? Are they 
not the very men to deny this infallibility? Do they not 
point, with an irrefragable cogency of logical force, to the 
erroneous and superstitious teaching which Peter was en- 
forcing, and by which he was corrupting the religion of 
Christ when, at Antioch, " he compelled the Gentiles to live 
"as did the Jews," and Paul " withstood him to the face be- 
" cause he was to be blamed?" If, then, all the promises of 
Jesus did not prevent Peter from failing into culpable error in 
his most urgent instructions as a religions teacher on that 
occasion at Antioch, what proof is there that they ever made 
him infallible either when he wrote or when he spoke ? It is 
not for us in these pages to go into and explain in detail all 

* John xx. 23. t Matt xxviii 20. 



100 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

the promises of Christ to his Apostles and disciples ; but, 
whatever was the meaning of any or of all those promises, 
one thing is clear, namely, that they did not imply the in- 
fallible inspiration even of the Apostles — how much less of all 
the New Testament writers — for we have seen that Peter was 
not free from liability to err in his religions teaching ; and, if 
not he, then no man else. Lest any should naturally enough 
think the Apostles might err when they spoke on religious 
subjects but yet be infallible when they wrote, it may be worth 
while to remind the reader that our Lord's promises of Inspi- 
ration have direct and explicit reference to speaking, and only 
attach secondarily and by way of implication to that which 
the Apostles or others wrote. 

Before we pass from the examination of Christ's promises, 
it will be — not necessary for the completeness of our argument 
— but satisfactory to the carefulness of some inquirers, if we 
give a brief consideration to the numerous and glorious pro- 
mises of inspiration contained in that last discourse of Jesus, 
of which the beloved disciple has preserved the only record 
for us. 

After what has been already written, our question, with 
reference to these most precious promises, will be simply 
whether their grammatical construction compels us to under- 
stand them as holding out the prospect of infallible inspiration 
to the Apostles and "those who should believe on Christ 
" through their word," or whether we may simply and natu- 
rally assign to them a less pretentious and more tenable 
signification ? 

We shall take these several promises in the order of their 
occurrence in the f burte enth and three following chapters of 
John's Gospel. 

Jesus, anticipating the approach of his own death, is en- 
gaged in consoling his Apostles. " I will pray the Father," 
he says,* " and he shall give you another Comforter that he 
"may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of the truth," 
i. e. the Spirit of my revelation. Now, a preliminary question 
of great importance in considering these chapters is, do they 
hold out the hope of the Spirit's presence to the Apostles 
alone, or to them in com m on with all Christian believers and 
inquirers ? 

* John xiv, 16, 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 101 

The analogy of Scripture inclines us to adopt the second of 
these alternatives: and, indeed, it is remarkable how all our Lord' s 
promises of the Spirit are quoted as in some sense belonging 
to every modern Christian by the very theologians who insist 
most on these promises as guaranteeing infallibility to the 
New Testament writers. One is disposed to say to these 
illogical men, If the promises made the Apostles infallible, and 
if the same promises are rightly applied by you to us, why 
are we not made infallible ? But, to return from this digres- 
sion, the analogy of Scripture makes it probable that these 
promises of inspiration are applicable to all believers as well 
as to the Apostles. For instance, Christ in his Sermon on the 
Mount says, " Every one that asketh receiveth: and he that 
" seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh it shall be 
" opened,"* and " if ye being evil know how to give good 
u gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father 
" which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him." 
Luke,-j- reporting these same promises, as spoken by our Lord 
on another occasion, substitutes " the Holy Spirit" in the 
place of the general term " good things." Thus it is apparent 
that, according to the Gospels, every one that asketh for the 
Holy Spirit receiveth Him from the heavenly Father. More- 
over, even in those last affecting words of Christ, which 
(according to John's Gospel) were addressed directly and 
primarily only to the Apostles, there are several expressions 
to show how wide were the assurances of the Comforter's 
advent, and how world-embracing were the sympathies which 
now moved in the Saviour's breast. When the Comforter 
came, it was " the world" he was to convince of sin, of 
righteousness, and of judgment. " Neither pray I for these 
" alone" whom thou hast already given me, " but for them 
" also which shall believe on me through their word, that they 
" all may be one as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that 
" they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that 
"thou has sent me."J Remembering, then, the general ana- 
logy of Scripture, and bearing in mind the expressions which 
occur in this very discourse of our Lord, we set out with a 
conviction that these chapters are likely to hold out an assur- 
ance of the Spirit's presence to the Apostles in common with 
all Christian inquirers and believers. 

* Matt. vii. 8, &c. f Luke xi, 13. t John xvii. 20. 



102 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

In this liglit the promise of the Spirit of the truth "abiding 
u for ever," i. e. throughout the whole Christian dispensation, 
becomes intelligible. 

In the course of our perusal of the fourteenth chapter of 
John, we find the words, " the Holy Ghost shall teach you all 
" things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever 
" I have said unto you."* Undoubtedly, if any man choose 
to interpret these expressions perversely, he can make out a 
promise that the Apostles, or rather that all Christians should, 
the Spirit teaching them all things, possess a complete ency- 
clopaedic knowledge of the universe and an exact recollection 
of all Christ's minutest and most ordinary sayings. We have 
seen, however, that such an interpretation is contradicted by 
the phenomena of New Testament composition. 

The question for us, then, is not what is the possible, but 
what is the true, common sense meaning of this promise ? 
Had not the disciples misunderstood all their Master's instruc- 
tions ? Were they not still — when this promise was given — 
in utter darkness as to the object of Christ's mission and the 
nature of Messiah's kingdom ? Were they not still hankering 
after right and left hand seats in some earthly court ? Was 
it not with the sword that they were ready to establish his 
throne? What knew they of the "king of truth" whose 
" kingdom is not of this world ? What spirit were they of 
who wished to destroy the unconvinced and the lost with fire 
from heaven ? 

Well, now, if, by the crucifixion of Jesus, all their mundane 
hopes were shaken, not to say destroyed, and if, thereupon, 
the Holy Spirit worked with their alarmed, disappointed, and 
anxious spirits, and if by his co-operation and guidance, they 
(and many a one besides) were brought to see the folly of 
thinking the kingdom of God was meat and drink — if they 
were thus led to recognise that kingdom as consisting in 
righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, would not 
many an instruction of Christ's, that had been dark and enig- 
matic to them before, become clear and pregnant with Heavenly- 
minded wisdom, and so stand forth vividly and freshly in their 
memory where it had long lain entranced and almost dead ? 
Most remarkable is it that the Spirit is here spoken of, not as 
a revealer, but merely, though marvellously, as about to revive 

* John xiv. 26. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 103 

the human faculty of remembrance which prejudice had so long 
blinded and benumbed. Here, then, is no promise which must 
necessarily be understood as a guarantee of infallibility, but 
rather we find in these words a most intelligible assurance of 
re-invigora1ionto a human memory which had been palsied by 
the stupidity of prejudice. 

The next promise, which Mr. Henderson and other writers 
on Inspiration quote in support of scriptural infallibility, is 
couched in these words,* " When the Comforter is come, he 
" shall testify of me : and ye also shall bear witness because 
" ye have been with me from the beginning." 

We are at a loss to imagine what portion of these words can 
be conceived of as conveying a promise of infallibility. Two 
remarks, however, we make with reference to this passage; 
first, the inspiration here spoken of is manifestly to be given 
to others as well as to the Apostles, for it is to be a testimony 
which the Spirit will bear to men to whom likewise the 
Apostles, as Christ's witnesses, will bear their testimony as an 
auxiliary to that of the Spirit : and, secondly, that which is 
spoken of as fitting the Apostles to be Christ's witnesses is, not 
any supposed infallible inspiration, but simply their having 
been eye and ear- witnesses of our Lord's ministry. Then follows 
the promise of the Spirit as about to " convince the world of 
" sin, righteousness, and judgment." We do not know that 
there is any thing to make it apparent that the world has be- 
come in any way infallible, notwithstanding this gracious 
promise of inspired conviction. 

After this, we reach the last promise that is to be noticed. 
" When the Spirit of the truth is come he will guide you into 
" all the truth, for he shall not speak of himself : but what- 
" soever he shall hear that shall he speak : and he shall show 
" you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive 
" of mine and shall show it unto you."-j- Bearing in mind 
what was said with reference to the Spirit as a remembrancer, 
we anticipate no difficulty in interpreting these words without 
understanding them to imply the infallibility of the New Testa- 
ment. Hitherto the Apostles and others had followed Jesus 
from a love of his person, from an admiration of his power, and 
in the expectation that he would speedily take to himself great 
power, and reign as a temporal monarch with them for his 

* John xv. 26, 27. John xvi. 13, 



104 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

favourites and ministers. Now, whenever these dreams began 
to melt away before the light of the Messianic day, the Holy 
Spirit would be a guide to those who wished to follow Jesus : 
and, led by him, they should explore the inmost recesses of 
that " wisdom and righteousness, and sanctinoation and re- 
" demption," which Christ is made unto us by God. The 
future, in its general aspect of a world renovated by the gospel 
and of the principles of holiness and love becoming more and 
more widely prevalent and deeply engrained — this future, even, 
should thus be revealed to the prophetic gaze of Christian faith, 
as by the same Spirit of God, the ancient seers had been en- 
abled to anticipate and foretell the glorious advent of a world's 
Eedeemer. Throughout, too, the Spirit would glorify Jesus, 
for he would make it plain that all hope and all joy and all 
amelioration come to man and to the world through the in- 
strumentality, direct or indirect, of that one mediator, the man 
Christ Jesus. These glorious truths every believer is taught 
by the Spirit, and yet we are not infallible. May not the 
promises have been even more stupendously fulfilled to the 
Apostles (if they asked for and sought their fulfilment more 
earnestly than we do), and yet the Apostles have been fallible, 
like us, notwithstanding their inspiration ? The answer is too 
obvious to require that we should state it. We thus leave the 
promises of Jesus, as an argument in support of inspirational 
infallibility, with the remark that none of these promises re- 
quire — nay more, if their contexts be fairly examined, none of 
these promises admit of—the idea of inspiration making the 
Apostles or their writings infallible. 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 105 



CHAPTEK VIII. 

THE ARGUMENT FOR SCRIPTURAL INFALLIBILITY DRAWN FROM THE 
SUPPOSED NATURE OF DIVINE INSPIRATION. 

The next argument we shall examine, in favour of Inspira- 
tional Infallibility, is one which is derived from the very nature 
of Inspiration, and which rests on the assumed impossibility 
of errors occurring in a book in whose pages the Holy Spirit 
of God is supposed to be present by the influence he exercised 
on the writers, and by the sanction he gives to their writings. 
This is an argument on which apparently much stress is laid 
by the upholders of Scriptural infallibility. And indeed there 
is a certain obvious plausibility attaching to this argument. 
Once let our minds be possessed with the notion that the book 
which, as containing the heavenly Father's teaching we rightly 
call the " Word of God," was indited by the Holy Ghost, and 
that its human authors were merely used by that Divine per- 
son as so many pens might be used by us — that these human 
authors were instruments in the hands of the Spirit, and not 
rational free agents — and it follows by an easy process of logic, 
if not by a necessary course of piety, that we should believe 
there can be no error in that which the All-knowing has penned. 
But is not this to lose sight of the palpable fact that the in- 
spired writers so completely retained then human faculties 
that each wrote in his own style and according to the pro- 
pensity or habit of his own disposition. Paul was earnest, 
logical, discursive. John was loving and intuitive. James 
was as thorough a legalist as one holding the Christian doc- 
trine of grace could be. As diverse as were the characters of 
these men, so, undeniably, are their extant inspired writings 
diverse. The Spirit therefore did not employ them to write 
as machines, but as human beings and free agents, even in 
accordance with the saying of Paul that, when the prophets 
at Corinth spoke, they should remember their responsibility, 
inasmuch as God left " the spirits of the prophets subject to 
" the prophets." 



106 WHAT REASOX IS THERE EOR 

Thus, then, it is clear that, whatever inspiration was or was 
not, the inspirer co-operated with the inspired, but did not 
annihilate or even suspend the will and human personality of 
the inspired man. Now, on this view of the matter, how far 
is it necessary — nay, how far is it probable on grounds of 
analogy — that the inspired writings should possess the quality 
of infallibility because the co-operative influence of the All- wise 
was present in their human authors ? There are countless 
analogies whence we might draw an answer to this interroga- 
tory. Two shall suffice. 

In the mysterious process of animal procreation, who will 
deny that God co-operates ? Without his co-operation how 
could the embryo be created? And, when its organism is 
created, ayIio but God gives that vital energy whereby the 
new creature becomes a living being or a living soul ? 

In the contemplation of every devout mind, the agency of 
God vastly predominates over the agency of the procreating 
creature : and yet what is the offspring ? Is it perfect and 
free from all blemish because God mainly co-operated in its 
production ? Let a reply be furnished by the imperfections 
which, confessedly, are born with every brute and every man. 
The case of not unfrequent monstrosities of various kinds 
would give additional force to this consideration : but we are 
content to refer chiefly to the ordinary congenital imperfections 
of all creatures. 

If blemishes in the creature be not incompatible with the 
stupendous intervention of a Divine agency in generation, why 
should errors in the Bible be any more incompatible with the 
admirable co-operation of the Divine Spirit in the writing of 
that Bible ? 

Or, again, Scripture itself teaches us that our bodies are the 
temples of the Holy Ghost ; and that, if any man love Jesus 
and keep his commandments, the Father and the Son will 
come and make their abode with that man ; and, yet, where 
is the man, except our Lord, who has been either impeccable 
or iirfallible ? If, then, there be no practical incompatibility 
which has hindered the indwelling of Divine influence in our 
deceitful hearts and in our peccable bodies, why should we 
deem it a thing impossible that God should have inspired the 
human authors of Holy Writ, and yet that the writings which 
constitute the sacred volume should not be free from all error, 
that is, should not be infallible ? 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 107 

Here again, then, we are led to the remark that even this, at 
first sight, specious argument for scriptural infallibility, drawn 
from the acknowledged co-operation of the Infallible One in 
producing scripture, is wholly inconclusive. Indeed we should 
notice, in quitting this part of our argument, that as no moral 
event takes place without some degree of Divine co-operation, 
forasmuch as it is in God that we live and move and have our 
being, no moral event (not even sins excepted) cordd be other- 
wise than of unmixed excellence and perfection if the sup- 
position, required for the maintenance of this argument, were 
allowable. 



108 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE A PRIORI ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY. 

A very few words will suffice in dealing with the argument 
in support of inspirational infallibility which is drawn from d 
priori considerations of the improbability that such a Being, 
as we are constrained to believe God is, would make a special 
revelation of himself to mankind in Christ, and yet not secure 
to the world an infallible record of that revelation. 

At the very outset we acknowledge the a priori force of 
this consideration, its force, that is, antecedently to our com- 
paring our expectations with, and correcting them by, the 
facts which God has placed within the scope of our vision for 
the very purpose of our ascertaining the truth and so ridding 
ourselves of prejudices, that is, of judgments formed a priori 
or before we were acquainted with the evidence. God having 
given to one particular age a special and unique manifestation 
of himself and of his will towards man, it is, without doubt, 
antecedently probable that He will likewise have caused a 
special and (if it so seem to any mind) an infallible record of 
that special revelation. This we are ready to concede. But 
what then ? Are not a thousand suppositions antecedently 
probable, which yet experience of facts compels us to abandon 
as not true in effect, however probable they may have ap- 
peared in the prospect of expectation ? 

What could, a priori, be more probable than that God would 
prevent sin? Yet a bitter and humiliating experience compels 
us to own that sin, however antecedently improbable, is a dread 
reality. 

It is not too much to say that there is hardly one of our a 
priori expectations on any subject which the collection of ex- 
perience does not oblige us to modify if not wholly to reverse. 

In this very matter, for instance, of the probabilities attach- 
ing to a special revelation, it is well known that the majority 
of those who profess and call themselves Christians lay stress 
on other a priori arguments. And, indeed, is it not obvious 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE ? 109 

that, if an infallible record of revelation be antecedently pro- 
bable, no less probable is it that there should have been always 
an infallible guardian to preserve this record and an infallible 
interpreter to ensure a right comprehension of it? These 
Eoman Catholic a priori arguments for the infallibility of the 
church, the councils, the popes, &c, are, as we think, rightly 
negatived by a due observation of the errors which have been 
manifest in each and all these antecedently probable recep- 
tacles of infallibility. In like manner, while we acknowledge 
that an antecedent probability exists in favour of scriptural 
infallibility, we are compelled also to acknowledge that the 
observable facts of scriptural composition wholly reverse that 
probability, and convince us that errors on all sorts of subjects 
exist in Holy Writ, and show that, however valuable and 
precious its pages may be, the Bible is not infallible. 



110 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 



CHAPTER X. 

THE A POSTERIORI ARGUMENT FOR INSPIRATIONAL INFALLIBILITY. 

One more very popular and, we fear, very influential argu- 
ment for scriptural infallibility remains for us to examine. 
As the last was the d priori argument, or that derived from 
antecedent probabilities, so the argument we at present can- 
vass may be called the a posteriori or argument from supposed 
consequences. 

When every other consideration has failed to prove the Bible 
infallible, and when, on every side, it is clear that even in- 
spiration leaves the precious volume fallible, the final and 
almost universally prevailing argument is, If the Bible be not 
infallibly inspired, what certainty can we have about the Re- 
surrection of the body, or even the Immortality of the soul ? 
How can we be sure that we know what Christ taught or 
what God would have us to do ? To what authority can we 
appeal as a last resort in all doubts and all controversies? In 
disproving the infallibility of the Scriptures, are you not over- 
throwing the grounds of all Christian faith and even opening 
a road that will surely lead the persevering traveller through 
infidelity into Atheism ? 

In answer to these and similar questions we hope, in the 
sequel, to show how a regard for the Bible, which plainly 
recognises the fallibility of that inspired book, is one of the 
strongest safeguards against unbelief, and is likely to be a 
most influential propagator of the Christian religion. But, 
supposing we could not clear the apparent fallibility of Scrip- 
ture from any or from all the evil consequences which, it is 
often asserted, would follow upon the acknowledgment of 
that fallibility ; what then ? Are we so sure that the alleged 
but unproved doctrine of an infallible Inspiration does keep 
men in the church — does afford a plain and acknowledged 
canon of faith — does do all the good (or any of it) which it is 
asserted that the avowal of Biblical fallibility would undo ? 
Are not many men unbelievers notwithstanding the allege I 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? Ill 

infallibility of the Bible ? Have not some been driven into 
unbelief chiefly by this very dogma? Do all the tens of 
thousands of Roman Catholic believers agree in bowing to 
Scripture as the alone infallible standard? Does the acknow- 
ledgment of the infallibility of this one standard bind in one 
brotherhood of agreement Episcopalians and Presbyterians, 
Calvinists and Arminians, and all the other sects even of Pro- 
testantism ? Has not each sect, and almost every individual, 
its own (fallible) interpretation of the infallible Book ? 

But, whatever may be the possible, or even the probable, 
evil consequences of avowing truth in reference to the popular, 
and, as we think, perilous notion of Inspirational infalhbility, 
can it be our duty to lie for God ? Must we do evil that good 
may come of it ? Ought we to uphold any thing, which we 
know to be untrue, for the sake of results which we hope will 
accrue to us and to the world from its upholding? Is not God 
great and good enough to take care of His own cause which, 
in Christianity as in all things, is the cause of truth? To 
think - of maintaining an untrue doctrine of Inspirational in- 
fallibility, for fear of the consequences which may follow upon 
the acknowledging and enunciating of the truth, shows as- 
suredly a most lamentable want of faith towards Him who, 
being Almighty, has sent forth to us His Son Jesus, the 
Anointed, to be the way, the truth, and the life : and thus to 
think is, at the same time, directly to disobey the inspired 
precept, " prove all things : hold fast that which is good •" 
and to exclude ourselves obstinately from the company of 
those whose duty it is to " be ready always to give to every 
" man a reason for the hope that is in" them. 

What, we may well inquire, would now have been our posi- 
tion and that of all mankind if a regard to consequences had 
prevented Jesus and his Apostles from divulging and, at the 
peril and price of their lives, insisting on those truths which 
were not inaptly described as " turning the world upside 
" down?" How must the existing faith of Jew and Gentile 
have been shaken and torn to atoms before it could be true 
that " old things were passed away, and behold, all things 
"were become new I" You send your missionary to the 
Brahmin, to the Romanist, or to the slaves and the slave- 
holders, and what consequences may not ensue ? Nay, what 
consequences are sure to ensue if your mission have any suc- 
cess at all ? Must not mother be set against daughter and 



112 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

the nearest against the dearest ? Did not Jesus so come as 
not to bring peace but a sword into this evil world ? If Wick- 
liffe, Huss, Jerome, Luther, Zuingle, Calvin — nay, if Galileo, 
Hervey, Jenner, or any man who has ever had any tidings 
startling and troublesome, but profitable, to communicate, had 
taken warning and desisted, from consideration of conse- 
quences, to himself in the way of obloquy and martyrdom, or 
to the world in the way of amazement and revolution, where 
would the improvements of modern civilization and the bless- 
ings of the Gospel of Salvation now lie buried and lost? 

A priori arguments should make us carefully examine any 
claim which, with their support, is made upon our belief. 
Arguments from consequences should make every prudent and, 
still more, every pious man anxiously reflect on the certainty 
of what he has to tell and on the importance of its truth being 
made known. But, when once the antecedent probabilities 
and the supposed consequences have so operated on our minds, 
they have done their proper work ; and he, who, from a regard 
to these considerations, conceals important truth, is putting 
his light under a bushel, failing to be the salt of the earth and 
falling under the condemnation, " Therefore, to him that 
" knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 113 



. CHAPTER XI. 

RESUME AND CONCLUSION. ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OF THIS BOOK 

AND OUTLINE OF THE METHOD TO BE EMPLOYED IN THE TWO 
SUCCEEDING- BOOKS. 

We have now examined the several arguments which are 
ordinarily advanced in support of an inspiration of the Bible 
which is denned as rendering that blessed book infallible. 
We have not attempted to open the subjects of Miracles or of 
Prophecy generally ; but we have probably seen enough of 
the Scriptural teaching on these points to assure the reader 
that they cannot either of them be adduced in proof of inspira- 
tion making the Bible infallible. 

We have seen that the authority said to be attributed to 
Scripture by Jesus cannot be understood as implying the in- 
falhbility of Holy Writ ; and that, if it could, we should still 
need some proof that we had an infallible record of what Jesus 
said. 

We have seen that the amazing excellence of the Bible no 
more proves it infallible than similar excellence proves any 
thing else, in which that excellence resides, to be free from 
all error and imperfection. 

We have seen that, instead of the History of the Canon 
proving the Bible infallible, that History itself needs much 
investigation, if, indeed, it be not hopelessly dark, so that it 
is rather the goodness and approved excellence of the Old and 
New Testaments which warrant our assenting to their canoni- 
city than their canonicity which assures us of their inspiration. 

We have seen that our Lord's several promises of inspiration 
may be — if indeed we should not say must be — so interpreted 
as wholly to exclude the element of infalfrbility from the idea 
of inspiration. 

We have seen that the common arguments, from antecedent 
probabilities and from supposed consequences, are altogether 
inadequate to support the notion of scriptural infallibility, and, 



114 WHAT REASON IS THERE FOR 

indeed, are quite unworthy to give pause to an earnest mind 
which has a clear perception of some unrecognised, and per- 
haps unpalatable, though useful and important truth. 

And, yet again, we have seen that there is nothing in the 
idea of inspiration itself which renders it incompatible tor errors 
to exist in a person or in a book in which a measure of the 
Spirit of God is indwelling. 

Besides these and some other points, which have all been 
touched in the course of the preceding pages, we know no 
other argument, worth calling such, which has been, or can 
be, adduced to support the popular doctrine of inspirational 
infallibility, 

In our first Book we saw clear indications that the Bible 
contained errors in history, in morality, and even in religion. 
That it contains scientific errors few men of ordinary candour 
and intelligence are now prepared to deny. Thus, then, our 
present position is, that we have shown there is no reason 
which ought to lead us to expect infallibility, or freedom from 
all error, in an insj3ired book : and, moreover, we have seen 
that the Bible, which we acknowledge as an inspired book — 
yea, as pre-eminently the inspired book — has in its pages un- 
mistakeable proofs of its fallibility. 

We have, for ourselves at least, exorcised the ghost of 
infallibility from the Bible : but is that volume, therefore, 
become profitless in our eyes? Far otherwise. We value it, 
not because of the spurious ornaments of tinsel with which 
men had surrounded it, but for the real and genuine gold 
which the heavenly Father has placed therein. 

Do we cast away as valueless the writings of Thucydides, 
or Tacitus, or Aristotle, because they have some errors in 
them ? Shall we tread under foot and despise Milton, Shak- 
speare, or Kacine, because they are fallible ? Do we ignore 
the lessons of Bacon, of Newton, of Herschel, or of Lyell, of 
Chalmers, of Arnold, of Whately, of Neander, or of Coleridge, 
because neither those nor any other writers or their writings 
have been infallible ? Nay, does any sane and godly man 
despise and neglect the teaching of his Church because he may 
hold, with the twenty-first Article of the Episcopalians in 
England, that even duly summoned general councils of the 
universal church " may err, and sometimes have erred, even 
u in things pertaining unto God?" 

If, then, we revere and study all the so-called uninspired 



EXPECTING THE BIBLE TO BE INFALLIBLE? 115 

books which we deem wise and good, though fallible, why, 
because we have abandoned an untenable and unreasonable 
notion of its infallibility, should we lose one jot of veneration 
for that best and holiest book, the Bible, to which many, if not 
all, of the greatest and wisest men, in modern times at least, 
have agreed in affixing the glorious epithet "Inspired?" 
Instead of adopting any such rash and unholy course of con- 
tempt, it will be our effort, in the next Book, to ascertain what 
is rightly meant by designating the Bible as inspired : and 
then, in another portion of our volume, we may try to answer 
for ourselves the question, What is the just authority of the 
Bible in matters of religious faith? and on what ground, if not 
on its infallibility, does that authority rest ? 



BOOK III. 

WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING OF THE 
TEEM "INSPIRATION?" 



CHAPTER I. 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



If, as a matter of fact, the Bible be not infallible ; and if there 
be no good reason which can be assigned for our supposing 
the sacred volume otherwise than fallible, what shall we say 
of the inspired writings ? And first, Do we believe the Bible 
to be inspired at all ? Undoubtedly we do. We are firmly 
convinced that the writers of Holy Scripture were inspired, 
and that their writings are the reflex of their own inspired 
minds and thoughts : and thus we most distinctly avow our 
belief in the inspiration of the Bible. But, as has been seen, 
we are assured that there is no connexion whatever between 
Infallibility and Inspiration. 



Section I. — The idea of "Inspiration" but not the word, is in 
Scripture. 

What, then, is the true meaning of this solemn and impor- 
tant word ? 

Let us, first of all, remind the reader that there is no such 
word as our English noun " Inspiration" either in the Hebrew 
of the Old Testament or in the Greek of the New. Twice, 
indeed, in the English Bible, the term is used, but it is not an 
exact rendering of the idiom in the original. Thus, in Job 
xxxii. 8, " But there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of 



WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING, ETC. 117 

" the Almighty giveth them, understanding," the Hebrew 
word translated " inspiration" is, according to Gesenius, more 
correctly rendered by the words " breath" or " spirit." So, 
too, in 2 Tim. iii. 16, every tyro in Greek knows that an 
adjective fiheopneustos, signifying " divinely breathed") is the 
term which our translators have paraphrased as equivalent 
to " given by inspiration of God." Thus, in the two passages 
of the English Bible where " inspiration" is mentioned, there 
is no exactly equivalent noun either in the Hebrew or the 
Greek. 

Do we mean, then, that the idea of inspiration is novel or 
peculiar to the English ? Far from it. We hope, ere long, 
to show the reader that this idea is thoroughly Hebrew : but, 
in order to do this, it is necessary that we should point out 
that neither the Hebrew language nor the vocabulary of the 
New Testament writers expressed this grand idea by any 
single, abstract word like our " inspiration." If a Jew, or an 
early Christian, wished to say that any action was referable 
to some inspiration, his mode of expressing this idea was, 
Such and such an action was performed by such and such a 
spirit, good or evil, as the case might be. 

Answering, then, to our word inspiration neither the Hebrew 
of the Old Testament nor the Greek of the New has any term : 
but, for our words " Spirit" and " Ghost," the Hebrew had the 
common term " Ruach" and the rarer noun " Neshamah ;" 
whilst the Greek had the one word "Pneunia." 

Thus, then, an English reader, who knows nothing of the 
Bible's original languages, can thoroughly understand our 
present investigation if he will remember that, wherever 
" Spirit" occurs in our Old Testament, it is, in the original, 
represented generally by the word " Euach" and, in a few 
instances, by the synonymous word " Neshamah :" and wher- 
ever " Spirit" or " Ghost" occurs in our New Testament, with 
reference to the Deity, they answer to the one word "Pneuma" 
in the Greek. 



Section 2. — The Vague Application of the terms " Ghost" 
" Spirit" and their equivalents in the Greek and in the 
Hebrew. 
The next observation we would offer to the reader is that 

all these several terms, in the Hebrew, Greek, and English, 



118 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING 

are used indiscriminately to denote things sacred and profane, 
if, indeed, this their usage be not an eternal protest against 
the prevalent belief that any creature of God can be "profane' 7 
or otherwise than sacred. 

Thus, the word " ghost" is by no means confined to the 
usage in which it is employed as denoting a divine agent ; 
but even, in modern English, it signifies the popular idea of 
any disembodied human person ; and, in scriptural English, 
we find the expression "yielded up the ghost" as the render- 
ing for a Greek word signifying "died:" and the word "spirit" 
is by us employed, in manifold senses, to denote courage, ani- 
mation, alcoholic mixtures, and a multitude of other things. 

The Hebrew word " Neshamah" was used, Gesenius tells 
us, to signify the "soul" of man, any "living creature," and 
once to denote the "mind" (in Prov. xx. 27), or, yet again, it 
was employed to signify " the panting of those who are 
" angry :" and, in like manner, the other Hebrew term, 
" Euach," occurs as a name for the breath of man, the wind, 
the quarters of heaven, any thing vain and fickle like the 
wind, the vital principle, and the rational mind. 

Equally various are the significations of the Greek word 
"Pneuma;" as is well exemplified by John iii. 8. " The spirit 
" breatheth (our translators say with noteworthy incorrectness 
"'the wind bloweth') where it listeth, and thou nearest the 
"sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and 
" whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the spirit." 

Thus wide and various are the significations of the several 
words, in Hebrew, Greek, and English, by which the agent 
who inspires is designated. Does the Divine agent derive 
his name from some resemblance which is supposed to exist 
between Him and man's mind, or the vital principle, or the 
wind ? Or, on the other hand, do these and many other created 
beings and energies obtain their honourable designation from 
the belief that they exist and have their power only by the 
originating and sustaining instrumentality of God, whose name 
is " Euach," " Pneuma," " Spirit ?" 

We are decidedly of the latter opinion ourselves : but, in 
the meanwhile, we only ask the reader to notice with what a 
width and consequent occasional confusedness of signification 
each of these terms is used. "Spirit" is not confined to denot- 
ing the Holy Ghost; but has several other meanings in English. 



OF THE TERM " INSPIRATION?" 119 

So, likewise, is it with " Pneuina" in Greek and with " Kuach" 
in Hebrew. 

But, at present, our object is, if possible, to ascertain in 
what sense the " Kuach" of God, the divine " Pneurna," the 
Holy " Spirit," is spoken of? In what manner, and in what 
persons or things, is he said to operate ? If, by the help of 
Old Testament usage, or if by noticing the way in which these 
terms are applied in the New Testament and in the languages 
of Christendom, we can answer this question, we shall be sure 
of success in finding a true, historical definition for our modern 
word Inspiration ; for we shall have the ancient idea to which 
more recent custom has affixed this title. 



120 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING 



CHAPTEE II. 



USE OF THE TERMS " RUACh" (SPIRIT) AND " NESHAMAH" (BREATH) 
IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

Let us first see how the Old Testament speaks of the Divine 
"Ruach," or " Neshaniah ?" Every man will be ready with 
the recollection that an ancient creed declares that the Holy 
Ruach " spake by the prophets :" and, accordingly, we find 
Isaiah (xlviii. 16) saying, with probable reference to himself, 
" The Lord God, and his Ruach, hath sent me ;" and Ezekiel 
(iii. 24) writes, " Then the Ruach entered into me and said 
" unto me," &c; and Daniel (v. 12) is described as a man in 
whom " an excellent Ruach, and knowledge, and understand- 
" ing, &c, were found." So, too, many of the minor prophets 
allude to the " Ruach," by whom " the Lord stirred up Zerub- 
" babel" (Hag. i. 14), and " in" whom " the Lord of Hosts 
(Zech. vii. 12) " had sent by his former prophets." 

Similarly Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and manj" 
other ancient prophets are declared to have been influenced by 
the holy "Ruach;" and, especially, the Jewish history (2 
Sam. xxiii. 2) informs us that " The Ruach of the Lord spake 
"by David." 

In all these and many more passages it is obvious that the 
"Ruach" of God is described as in some way enabling or 
exciting the prophets of Israel. Was this, then, the only 
connexion in which the Hebrew writers spoke of the Holy 
Spirit ? Let us see. 

At the commencement of the book of Genesis we find it 
stated that " the Ruach of God moved upon the face of the 
" (chaotic) waters." The Hebrew verb, here translated 
"moved," occurs again in Deut. xxxii. 11; and there it in 
rendered "fluttereth over," with reference to an eagle cherish- 
ing and developing life and warmth in her nestlings. So 
beautifully and accurately has the scholarlike Milton given the 
true meaning of Gen. i. 2, when, in his invocation, he addresses 
the " Ruach" of God thus — 



OF THE TERM " INSPIRATION?" 121 

" And chiefly thou, Spirit, that dost prefer 
Before all temples the upright heart and ptire, 
Instruct rne, for thou knowest; thou from the first 
Wast present, and, with mighty wings outspread, 
Dove-like safst brooding on the vast abyss, 
And mad' st it pregnant." 

Such is the earliest Scriptural reference to the Divine 
" Ruach." Now, either this mention of the Spirit of God 
" moving on the face of the waters" is meaningless and 
inopportune ; or, the idea is intended to be conveyed to us that, 
even with inert, chaotic matter, the "Ruach" is tenderly and 
fosteringly present, waiting to evoke and to sustain the faintest 
sign of life and order. 

If we follow out the suggestion contained in this last inter- 
pretation, the Old Testament will offer to our notice several 
passages in which the "Ruach of God" is spoken of as 
inspiring the various portions, animate and inanimate, which 
go to make up the universe. To this effect the Psalmist 
(xxxiii. 6) teaches us, saying — "By the word of the Lord 
" were the heavens made ; and all the host of them by the 
"Ruach (Spirit) of his mouth;" while Job (xxvi. 13) declares 
" By his Ruach (Spirit) God hath garnished the heavens ;" 
and Isaiah adopts the same idea in another application when 
(xxxiv. 16) he exhorts men to " seek out the book of the Lord 
"and read" it on a consideration that "the cormorant," "the 
"bittern," "the owl," "the raven," "the thorns," "the 
"nettles," " the brambles," "the dragons," "the wild beasts 
" of the desert," " the wild beasts of the island," " the satyr," 
"the screech-owl," "the great owl," and "the vultures" 
shall never "fail" to be the occupants of Idumasa, inasmuch 
as the mouth of the Lord, " it hath commanded, and i?z's Ruach 
" (Spirit) it hath gathered them" and in like manner the Psalmist 
(civ. 29, 30), speaking of the " fowls of the heaven," " the 
" springs of water," "the grass," "the herb," "the wine," 
"the trees," "the young lions," "leviathan," and all the 
inhabitants of the land and of the waters, says, "Thou" (God) 
" hidest thy face, they are troubled. Thou takest away their 
"Ruach (Spirit), they die and return to their dusfc. Thou 
" sendest forth thy Ruach (Spirit), they are created and thou 
" renewest the face of the earth ;" and, yet once more, (Psalm 
cxxxix. 7) the sacred penman asks, " Whither shall I go from 
"thy Ruach (Spirit) ? or whither shall I flee from thypresence?" 
and his answer implies throughout that, by His Ruach, God 



122 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING 

is present and active every where, in heaven, in hell, in the 
nttermost parts of the sea, in the darkness and in the light, in 
man's "reins," in the "mother's womb," and even among 
the wicked to slay them ; and, quite in accordance with this 
Hebrew mode of speaking of the Buach of God, we find Ezekiel 
representing the several " wheels" and other portions of his 
vision (Ezek. i. 21) as moving up and down, hither and thither, 
because "the Kuach (Spirit) of life was in the wheels." 

Thus, then, we have that which, in every instance except 
this last quotation from Ezekiel, is expressly named as the 
Ruach or Spirit of God, described to us in Holy Writ as present 
and effective in the host of heaven, in the elements, and in the 
plants and animals of the earth. The pious Hebrew saw 
nothing strange in regarding the stars and planets as inspired 
to hold their fixed position or travel in their several orbits. 
He considered the parts of a vision which suggested truth of 
any kind, as inspired. He looked on the tribes of animals 
and plants as divinely inspired for the selection of their abode. 
When the heavenly Father sent down the rains alternating 
with the sunshine, and when " the face of the earth was thus 
"renewed," the religious Jew saw no profanity in tracing the 
rise of a fountain, the course of a stream, the growth of the 
grass, and the fattening of the cattle to the Inspiration of God. 
Just as he said (Psalm xxix.), " The voice* of the Lord shaketh 
" the wilderness" — " The voice of the Lord maketh the hinds 
"to calve and discovereth the forests;" or (Psalm cxlvii.) 
" The Lord covereth the heaven with clouds ; He prepareth 
" rain for the earth ; He maketh grass to grow upon the moun- 
" tains ; He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young 
" ravens which cry unto Him;" — just as the pious Hebrew 
could thankfully use these words with reference to God and 
" common things," so could he say — and say most truly, 
wisely, and devoutly — that all the processes, of change or of 
continuance, in matter and in life — those processes which we, 
in our one-sided, though true and philosophical, fashion, ascribe 
to "the laws of nature," or to "the principles of some 
" science" — were carried on by the direct agency of the Spirit 

" The voice of the Lord,'' in Psalm xxix., is, we believe, a designation of the 
thunderstorm. This, however, is so far from weakening our argument that it 
represents the poet as d2claring the thunder and the lightning to be God's 
inspired ministers for effecting various purposes on the mountains, in the plains, 
and among the pastures. 



OF THE TERM " INSPIRATION? " 123 

<or Kuach of God, and so were referable to what, in our idiom, 
we call divine Inspiration. 

Let no one say that this is a novel statement, even if it be 
true. It is at least as ancient as the Nicene (or Constantino- 
politan ?) Creed, which, teaches us to believe, not only that the 
Holy Ghost " spake by the prophets," but also that He is "the 
" giver of life." Besides, as to antiquity, we have just been 
showing that the Jews — the confessedly inspired Jewish 
writers of the Bible — taught these same truths thousands of 
years ago. 

So far, then, we have seen that, accordiDg to the Old Testa- 
ment idea, it was with the presence and co-operation of the 
Holy Ghost that the prophets spoke ; and with the presence 
and co-operation of the same Spirit that matter .was formed, 
or life was generated in the embryo, or was sustained in the 
living creature. 

We pass on now to notice the various senses, besides the 
prophetical, in which the Old Testament tells us that the 
Kuach of God has to do with man as distinguished from other 
creatures. In the second of the two accounts of man's creation 
(Gen. ii. 7), we are told that it was by God's breathing the 
breath (Neshamah) of life into the nostrils of man that Adam 
became a living soul. This tallies with what we have already 
seen of the vital principle being always attributed, in the Old 
Testament, to what we now call Inspiration. But, as we proceed 
along the course of the Bible's pages, we learn farther, that not 
only did the Egyptian Pharaoh attribute Joseph's power of in- 
terpreting dreams and his statesmanlike wisdom (Gen. xli. 38) 
to the Spirit of God which was in him, but, in Exod. xxxi. 3, 
God is represented as having said to Moses, "I have filled Beza- 
" leel with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, 
" and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, to devise 
" cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, 
" and in cutting of stones to set them, and in carving of tim- 
" ber, to work in all manner of workmanship ;" " and in the 
" hearts of all that are wise-hearted I have put wisdom, that 
" they may make all that I have commanded thee." Similarly, 
in 1 Chron. xxviii. 12, David is said to have left to Solomon 
the pattern of the temple, even " all that he had by the Spirit." 
In these passages mechanical skill and genius are distinctly 
ascribed to what we should call the Inspiration of God, just 
as, in Job xxxii. 8, we have seen that the words are written, 



124 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING 

" But there is a Spirit or Ruach in man, and the Neshamah or 
" inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." 
It is Job, too, who says (xxvii. 3), " All the while my breath 
" (Neshamah) is in me, and the Spirit (Ruach) of God is in 
" my nostrils, my lips shall not speak wickedness;" and it is, 
moreover, in the book of Job (xxxiii. 4) that the wise Elihu 
acknowledges, " The Spirit (Ruach) of God hath made me, 
" and the breath (Neshamah) of the Almighty hath given me 
"life." 

The prayer of penitence, fearing lest the love of habitual 
goodness should be lost in the moral ruin and disorder pro- 
duced by one frightful sin, is (Psalm li. 11) "Cast me not 
" away from thy presence, and take not thy Holy Spirit (Ruach) 
"from me." If assistant judges are, on the advice of Jethro, 
chosen to aid Moses in the temporal administration of Israel- 
itish affairs, we learn that (Numbers xi. 25) " the Lord came 
" down and took of the Spirit that was upon Moses, and gave 
" it unto the seventy elders ;" and presently it is stated clearly 
(Numb. xi. 29) that it was "the Lord's Spirit" which was so 
imparted to the elders ; and again, when Moses is to appoint 
his own successor in the government of the Jews (Numb, 
xxvii. 18) the command to him is, "Take thee Joshua, the 
" son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay thine hand 
" on him." 

Now, in all these passages, is it not manifest that the pious 
writers of the Old Testament have no hesitation in ascribing 
judicial discernment, administrative wisdom, mechanical tact, 
the animal life of man, what we should call inventive genius 
and, generally, all the powers of human reason and under- 
standing, to the present co-operation of the Spirit of God, that 
is, to what we call divine Inspiration. 

We, men of the present day, call our poets and inventors 
men of genius. We call our skilful and Cjuick mechanics 
clever. We often attribute respiration or the continuance of 
animal life to the due discharge of their several functions by 
our different organs. The Hebrew did not so. With him 
human life was owing "to the Spirit of God in man's nostrils," 
that is, to inspiration : and so too, with him, poetry, inventive 
powers, genius, cleverness, skill, and intelligence of every 
kind were owing to the Spirit of God in man, or, as we say, 
to divine Inspiration. 

We have found, then, three distinct but comprehensive 



OF THE TERM " INSPIRATION ? " 125 

classes of actions which the Old Testament ascribes to the 
Spirit or Kuach of God, viz. — the originating and sustaining 
orderly material existence and animal life ; the quickening 
human life and intelligence, and skill and holiness ; and the 
inspiring of the prophet. 

There is yet another class of operations attributed in the 
Old Testament to what we call divine Inspiration. Not only 
is it said of Othniel (Judges hi. 10) that " the Spirit of the 
" Lord came upon him/' " and he judged Israel and went out 
" to war; 1 not only is it written that, in time of war with the 
Midianites and Amalekites (Judges vi. 34), "the Spirit of the 
" Lord came upon Gideon, and^e olew a trumpet and" gathered 
soldiers after him ; not only is it said that, when the Am- 
monites were oppressing Israel, (Judges xi. 29,) "the Spirit 
" of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead" 
and went to fight against the Ammonites : but we are told with 
reference to Samson — Samson the mighty in faith and strength, 
but the turbulent, the licentious, and the unholy — that " the 
" Spirit of the Lord began to move him at times in the camp 
" of Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol." Now, with regard to 
all these cases, the pious Jew might adopt the language which, 
in Psalm cxliv. 1, is ascribed to David, and might and did, in 
effect, say of them, It is the Lord " which teacheth my hands 
" to war and my ringers to fight." So, then, the Old Testa- 
ment writers saw neither difficulty nor impropriety in believing 
and declaring that even in men, devoid of holiness or sadly 
deficient in sanctification, whatever was good or brave or 
strong, was put there by the Spirit of God. They called the 
coinage and generalship of an Othniel, a Gideon and a 
Jephthah the result of divine Inspiration ; and they attributed 
the gigantic strength of Samson to the same holy source. This, 
then, namely, the bestowal of physical courage, strategical 
skill, and even muscular strength, is the fourth class of sub- 
jects in which the Hebrew recognised that agency of the 
Spirit (or Euach) of God which we call divine Inspiration. 

We have spoken, for the convenience of our verbal analysis, 
of four classes of subjects which are described in the Old 
Testament as partaking of Inspiration: but what generic 
differences are there between the Inspirations of these various 
classes ? The reflective reader will perceive at once that 
there is no such difference. In every case the Inspirer, being 
the one Holy Spirit of God, gives to all his several operations 



126 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING 

a generic oneness. The differences, in the several cases of 
Inspiration, are not generic, but specific, as arising from the 
diversities of the subjects or recipients of the divine influence, 
not from any inconsistency or imperfection in the action of the 
one divine person, whose presence and co-operation, in every 
case, justify the application of the epithet "inspired" to any 
person or thing. We have spoken throughout of the same 
" Spirit of God" who energizes over the chaotic waters, in the 
streams among the hills, in the grass, in the herbs, in the 
trees, in the animals, in their life and in their instinct ; the 
same " Spirit of God" who energizes in man, in his nostrils, 
in his heart, and in his brain. In the striking language of 
the Christian Apostle, It is one Spirit distributing to every 
man severally as He will (1 Cor. xii. 11) : but though there 
are "diversities of gifts," still " it is the same Spirit." It is, 
generically, one and the same divine inspiration which im- 
parteth goodness to any and to all objects, however various 
those objects may be. The inspiration is one, though the 
inspired be several. Thus our conclusion with reference to 
the Old Testament is that, as it is not pretended that the Holy 
Spirit's influence or Inspiration caused the processes of nature 
to be perfect or infallible, so it is not to be expected that the 
same Holy Spirit's influence has made, or should have made, the 
sacred writings perfect or infallible ; but we observe that, accord- 
ing to Old Testament custom, whatever was good, orderly, or 
strong — whether in the adornment of the heavens, in the spring- 
ing of a blade of grass, in the rolling of the rivers, in the mystery 
of the womb, in the strength of Samson, in the instinct of the 
owl, in the common thoughts of ordinary men, or in the clever- 
ness and genius of extraordinary men, in the poetry of the 
Psalmist, or in the predictions and moral teachings of the 
prophet — whatever — in any or in all these matters, or in aught 
else — was good, the Bible writer attributed to the Euach or 
Spirit of God, whose action we designate " Inspiration." 



OF THE TERM " INSPIRATION? " 127 



CHAPTEE III. 

USE OF " PNEUMA" (SPIRIT) IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Let us now proceed to consult the New Testament writers, 
and observe if they teach us to change or modify this idea of 
Inspiration. The gospel promises of Inspiration we have 
already had occasion to observe. We have seen that their 
veracity must be abandoned if they meant that infallibility 
should be given to Peter or any man. We have also seen 
that some, and probably all, of those promises were made, in 
behalf of those who should subsequently believe in Jesus, as 
well as on behalf of those who were his contemporary disciples. 
Accordingly we find the New Testament Scriptures entirely 
carrying out the Old Testament view of Inspiration. What- 
ever good thing befel, for the furtherance of the gospel, that 
the New Testament writers do not hesitate to ascribe to the 
Inspiration of God. It would be strange, indeed, if the Chris- 
tian Scriptures did not allude with frequency to the agency 
of the Holy Spirit, for, apart from multitudinous other pro- 
phecies to the same effect, Isaiah had sung gloriously of the 
Messiah " on whom Jehovah had put his Spirit,"* and Joel 
had declared that, in Messiah's days, God would " pour out 
"his Spirit upon all flesh:" and the sons and the daughters, 
the old men and the young, the servants and the handmaids 
should all be inspired. 

Throughout the whole periods of both the Old and the New 
Testament histories, and through all the time which intervened 
betwixt Malachi and the Messianic epoch, the Jews still held 
the same idea of all that is good coming by Inspiration. The 
only difference, in this respect, between Judaism and Chris- 
tianity is that the inspiration of the latter, being the same in 
kind with the inspiration of the former, is fuller in degree. 

Accordingly we find (Luke ii. 25) that, even prior to the 
birth of Jesus, the Scripture recognises Simeon as a man 
"upon whom the Holy Ghost was :" and of John the Baptist 
it was foretold (Luke i. 15) that he should be "filled with the 

* Isaiah slii. 1. 



128 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING 

" Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb;" and accordingly, 
too, when our Lord was to be miracnlonsly conceived — when 
the spiritual father of our race was, as a man, to be created — 
it is recorded (Luke i. 35) in the words, " The Holy Ghost 
" shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall 
" overshadow thee; therefore, also, that holy thing which shall 
"be born of thee shall be called the Son of God;" and, in 
like manner, it is declared of our Saviour that, throughout his 
visible life in this world, the Spirit was given to him " with- 
out measure" (John iii. 34). So, it was by the Spirit that 
Jesus was led up into the wilderness to be tempted (Matt. iv. 
1) ; by the same Spirit (Matt. xii. 28) he cast out devils ; and 
(1 Pet. iii. 18) by the same Spirit he was "quickened" after 
he had been " put to death in the flesh." 

During our Lord's lifetime, and therefore before the Spirit 
(cf. John vii. 39) was yet given in that fulness which had been 
foretold by Joel, and which began to be fulfilled on the day of 
Pentecost, Jesus said to his Apostles,when he sent them on 
their temporary and experimental mission apart from him, 
(Matt. x. 20), In your apologies "it is not ye that speak, but 
" the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." Thus 
completely, throughout the whole history of the Jewish and 
Christian religion, has the doctrine of the one indwelling and 
variously co-operative Spirit of God been recognised. Nothing, 
according to the gospel of Luke (xi. 13), can be of more uni- 
versal applicability than the assurance given by our Saviour, 
" Every one that asketh receiveth," * * * " If ye then 
" being evil know how to give good tilings to your children, 
" how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy 
" Spirit to them that ask him." Nor can anything be clearer 
than the assertion of John (i. 13 : cf. iii. 5) that the change 
in any man's mind, by which he became a believer on the Son 
of God and a member of the kingdom of heaven, was effected, 
not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of mere humanity, 
but by the agency of the Spirit. 

So far, then, the early part of the Christian dispensation 
shows an entire agreement with the Old Testament in recog- 
nising the Spirit of God as the originator and sustainer of 
every thing good. And in those extant records of Christian life 
which have reference to the period subsequent to what is known 
as the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit, we shall find 
the same idea of Inspiration only accompanied by a belief that 



OF THE TERM "INSPIRATION?" 129 

the beneficent Spirit of God was more deeply and more exten- 
sively diffused in his energetic and sanctifying influences. 

On the day of Pentecost, and subsequently, it cannot have 
been the miraculous powers imparted by the Holy Ghost which 
were the novelty; for, if we credit the Old and New Testament 
history, there had been many miracles in ancient times ; and, 
even in the three years immediately preceding that Pentecostal 
day, Jesus and his followers had been achieving a wide-spread 
fame by their countless and astounding deeds of healing, exor- 
cising, and raising the dead. The novelty was, not in the 
miracle of Pentecost, but in the extent to which the miracle- 
working agents were multiplied, for, we read, "they" (appa- 
rently the 120) " were all filled with the Holy Ghost" (Acts ii. 
4) ; and at a later date again, when the Christians numbered 
then thousands of converts, we read (Acts iv. 31) "They 
" were all filled with the Holy Ghost :" and again (Acts v. 
32) Peter declares, before the hostile authorities, that the Holy 
Ghost is given to them (evidently meaning to all of them) that 
obey God and believe on Jesus. So, too, at Samaria, the Holy 
Ghost was given to all on whom the Apostles laid their 
bands (Acts viii. 17). The churches throughout all Judaea 
and Galilee and Samaria were multiplied (Acts ix. 31), 
" walking in the comfort of the Holy Ghost." At Antioch 
(Acts xiii. 2) " the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas 
" and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." In 
the council at Jerusalem the form of drawing up an apostolic 
opinion is, " It seemed good (edoxej to the Holy Ghost and to 
"us" (Acts xv. 28). If, by a dream, or by any other circum- 
stances or causes, Paul and his companions were induced to 
abandon some field of missionary labour (Acts xvi. 6, 10), and 
to adopt another, the Christian expression was, " we were 
" forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia," 
and we " assuredly gathered that the Lord had called us to 
preach the gospel unto the Macedonians." In a word, if there 
was any thing which seemed good, in their thoughts or actions, 
the early Christians, like the pious Jews before them, ascribed 
its excellence to divine inspiration. If a believer had been in 
tribulation, and had learned patience, experience, and hope, 
Paul attributed such a glorious state of mind (Eom. v. 5) to 
the agency of " the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." The 
same Apostle exhorts men to be fervent in spirit (Rom. xii. 11) : 
he prays (Eom. xv. 13) that the believers at Eome may abound 



130 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING 

in hope " through the power of the Holy Ghost f he urges 
men (1 Cor. vi. 19) to "flee fornication" because their "bodies 
" are the temples of the Holy Ghost, which is in them, which 
" they have of Gocl :" and, so universal does he hold the 
inspiration of Christians to be, that (Eom. viii. 9) he solemnly 
declares, in the midst of one of his most sublime chapters, 
"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none 
" of his :" so, too, he writes to the corrupt church at Corinth 
(1 Cor. iii. 16), "The Spirit of God dwelleth in you." He 
recognises, as we have seen, the differences of gifts — nay 
more, he places the spiritual grace of love, which is the bond 
of perfectness, above all other graces, and incomparably above 
all gifts (1 Cor. xii. 31, xiii. 13) : he exhorts men (Eph. iv. 
30) not to grieve the Holy Spirit of God : he teaches that gifts 
of the Holy Ghost — even miraculous gifts — (1 Cor. xiv. 32) 
do not deprive men of the power of free moral option, or relieve 
them from entire moral responsibility, for, saith he, " the 
" spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets :" he warns 
the Thessalonians (1 Thess. v. 19) against "quenching the 
" Spirit." In all these, and many more passages of his writings, 
Paul recognises the various modes in which all Christians (1 
Cor. xii. 13) have drunk of the same Spirit, or in which every 
believer partakes of divine inspiration, as far as there is any 
thing good in him. 

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches the same 
doctrine when (Heb. vi. 4) he represents "partaking of the 
"Holy Ghost" as one of the constituents of Christian privilege. 
So James, without naming inspiration, expresses the idea most 
distinctly in several verses, of which the reader will remember, 
as a specimen, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from 
" above, and cometh down from the Father of lights." Peter 
calls all believers " a spiritual house," (1 Peter ii. 5) and com- 
forts the persecuted with the truth that " the Spirit of glory 
" and of God (1 Peter iv. 14) rests upon them." It is need- 
less to say how constantly John, in all his writings, recognises 
the promises and the operations of the Spirit of God and of 
truth. Even Jucle (19, 20) blames those who "have not the 
" Spirit," and urges all men to " pray in the Holy Ghost." 
Thus do the writers of both the Old and New Testaments 
teach us that all goodness every where — in all persons and 
tilings — is attributable to Divine Inspiration ; that such Inspira- 
tion is essential to every man in order to his being a member 



OF THE TERM "INSPIRATION?" 131 

of the kingdom of heaven or a follower of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and that Inspiration is of various value, according to 
the excellence which it produces, so that inspired preaching 
(or "prophesying") is better than the amazing but irrational 
gift of " tongues ;" and love, like that depicted in 1 Cor. xiii. 
4-7, is superior to any other result of Inspiration. 

It is very remarkable that nowhere — not even in Jeremiah 
— do we find the inspired penmen — Jewish or Christian — 
pronouncing their own writings inspired.* Yet we doubt not 
they believed every writing, like every thing else, to be inspired 
in proportion to its goodness. In the book of Genesis they 
would find no difficulty in pronouncing the histories or parables 
(to whichever class each case may belong) of creative power 
or of deceptive temptation, of believing Abraham or of holy 
Joseph, to be inspired- The care for and constant remembrance 
of God and religion manifested in " the Law ;" the lesson, of 
repentance and pardon through God's mercy, as taught in all 
the historical books, including Judges and Chronicles ; the 
piety and intense earnestness of the Psalmists and prophets ; 
the patience of Job ; the suggestive aphorisms of Proverbs 
and Ecclesiastes ; the simple and beautiful affection of Euth ; 
the truthfulness to human nature and to the principle of provi- 
dential government in Esther, a book which never names God ; 
and the important and, as all history strangely proves, the 
much-required lesson of Canticles that the Creator approves the 
playful, virtuous fondness of the bride with her bridegroom — 
all these and countless other excellences in the Old Testament, 
and the matchless holiness of the New Testament, compel every 
man who, like the Jews and early Christians, ascribes all that is 
good to the inspiration of God, to acknowledge that the Bible 
is an inspired volume, or, which is the same thing said in the 
Greek or Hebrew idiom — that the divine Kuach, the Pneuma 
of God, was in the writers, and is in the writings, of Holy 
Scripture. 

* One of the nearest approaches to such a statement is Paul's expression 
(I Ccr. vii. 40), " But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I 
a think also that I have the Spirit of God" This certainly looks as if, whenever 
Paul wrote the expression of any of his strong convictions, he supposed such 
writing to be inspired : but two further observations, which should not be lost 
sight of, in connexion with this passage, are, that manifestly Paul could not 
always — if he could ever — distinguish between his natural and his inspired 
thoughts; and that, just as on our principles we should expect, his doubt about 
the inspiration of any thought appears to be proportioned to the questionableness 
of the wisdom, utility, and holiness of that thought. 



132 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING 

It is noticeable, in connexion with the general subject of 
our previous chapters, that, not only does no sacred penman 
claim for his writings the character of Inspiration, but, more- 
over, that the very idea of Inspiration, as it was held by the 
Old and New Testament writers, had not the slightest con- 
nexion or even compatibility with infalhbility. For instance, 
what could be more profanely absurd than to call the inspired 
Samson infallible ? Or, what could be further from Paul's 
meaning than to describe the Corinthians as infallible, though 
he told them the Spirit of God dwelt in them, that is, that they 
were inspired — yea and though he even said of them (2 Cor. 
iii. 3), that they were "declared to be the epistle of Christ 
" ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit 
" of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in the fleshy 
"tables of the heart." Here was verily an inspired writing, 
spoken of by Paul : yet no man says this writing, the 
Christians namely of Corinth, was infallible. The truth is, as 
has been observable to the reader throughout this chapter, 
that, amongst the pious Jews and the early Christians, the 
idea of Inspiration was wholly unmixed with the notion of in- 
fallibility, and was, in addition to referring each good thing to 
God as its giver, simply equivalent to what we mean by any or 
all the several words good, strong, orderly, wise, clever, in- 
ventive, brave, instinctive, holy. 



The Difference between "Genius" and "Inspiration." 

The difference between the idea of Genius, in point of fact, 
and that of Divine Inspiration is, not in the result produced, 
but in the originator recognised. Thus we — referring Milton's 
Paradise Lost, or Bacon's Novum Organon, to the man who 
wrote each, (genius or creative thinker), or to the sprite that 
was in the man (genius, a heathen daemon) — describe each of 
these books as " a work of genius : " but the far truer and 
grander mode of speaking would be to refer the creative power 
of thinking to Him, who alone made Milton or Bacon to differ 
from ordinary writers, and thus to call their books works of 
the Spirit of God, written by Divine Inspiration. In this 
manner, without a doubt, David, or Solomon, or Isaiah, or Paul 
would have spoken of everytlhng which may with propriety 
be called a work of genius or of cleverness, or of holiness. 



OF THE TERM "INSPIRATION?" 133 

When the reader has perused our next Book, we shall not be 
justly chargeable with under-rating the peculiar authority 
which, in consideration of its Inspiration and on many other 
grounds, attaches to the Bible more than to any book : but, in 
the meanwhile, this which we have written, seems to us to be 
the Bible's own teaching on the subject of Inspiration — 
namely, that everything good in any book, person, or thing, is 
inspired, and that the value of any inspired book must be de- 
cided by the extent of its inspiration and the importance of 
the truths which it well (or inspiredly) teaches. Milton and 
Shakspeare, and Bacon and Canticles, and the Apocalypse and 
the Sermon on the Mount, and the eighth chapter to the Eo- 
mans are — in our estimation — all inspired : but which of them 
is the most valuable inspired document, or whether the Bible, 
as a whole, is not incomparably more precious than any other 
book, these are questions which must be decided by examining 
the observable character and tendency of each book, and the 
beneficial effect which history may show that each has 
produced. 



134 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING 



CHAPTEE IV. 

THE USE OF THE WORD INSPIRATION IN ITS TRUE AND ANCIENT SENSE 
AMONG THE CHURCHES OF CHRISTENDOM. 

The materials for our definition of the true meaning of the 
sacred word " Inspiration" are now complete : but we wish, 
in closing this Book, briefly to draw attention to the un- 
deniable fact, that by us, Christians of all parties and denomi- 
nations, in the nineteenth century, this word and its kindred 
or cognate terms are still employed, quite apart from all re- 
ference to infallibility, in their true, wise, and scriptural sense, 
as well as in that other sense in which an unhappy and super- 
stitious confusion of thought attaches the notion of infallibility 
to whatever is inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. 

Thus we find the Liturgy and the Articles of the Established 
Church in England employing the terms in such instances as 
the following : — 

" Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open, all desires 
"known, and from whom no secrets are hid; cleanse the 
" thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, 
" that we may perfectly love thee and worthily magnify thy 
"holy name, through Christ our Lord. Amen." — Collect in 
Communion Service. 

" Lord, from whom all good things do come, grant to us 
" thy humble servants, that by thy holy inspiration we may 
" think those things that be good, and by thy merciful guiding 
"may perform the same, through our Lord Jesus Christ. 
" Amen." — Collect for the Fifth Sunday after Easter. 

" God, who as at this time didst teach the hearts of thy 
" faithful people by sending to them the light of thy Holy 
" Spirit, grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgment 
"in all things and evermore to rejoice in his holy comfort," &c. 
— -Collect for Whit Sunday. 

" Works done before the grace of Christ and the Inspiration 
" of his Spirit are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring 
" not of faith in Jesus Christ," &c. — Article XIII. On Works 
before Justification. 



OF THE TERM " INSPIRATION ? " 135 

In these passages we recognise the fact that the Eeformed 
Clmrch of England formally acknowledges the meaning of 
"Inspiration" to be the indwelling and assistance of the Holy 
Spirit of God in sinful and erring subjects. It would be easy 
to adduce very numerous quotations, from the published works 
of the most highly-esteemed writers belonging to all the various 
sects in the Church, hi which the same signification is attached 
to the words " Inspire" and " Inspiration :" but the matter is 
so notorious, and so without contradiction, that such quotations 
are not necessary. There is hardly a prayer uttered, in private 
or in public, without supplications for "Inspiration," as a boon 
wlxich is asked of God for the poor erring mortals who urge 
the petition. 

Do we believe that these prayers for the Holy Spirit to 
inspire us are ever fulfilled ? Do we believe that these are 
vain supplications or not ? Assuredly every Christian hopes 
and believes that this prayer, at all events — whatever may be 
the answer to our entreaties for temporal and material gifts — 
will have its response in the Spirit sent down from on high. 
Well, then, if such be our thoughts concerning these prayers, 
there must be some modern Christians — private Christians as 
opposed to ecclesiastical officials — our contemporaries, if not 
ourselves, who are inspired. Yet, where is the sane Christian 
believer who claims for himself, as a private, non-official 
disciple of Christ, the attribute of infallibility, or who is pre- 
pared to concede that attribute to another? That which 
should make this consideration the more startling, to one who 
upholds the popular idea of an infallible Scriptural inspiration, 
is that the prayers for the Holy Ghost, to which we are allud- 
ing, are urged at the throne of grace on precisely the same 
grounds as those which are chiefly relied on as an argument 
to prove inspirational infallibility in the New Testament 
writers. We put it to our reader's consciousness whether it 
is not on the promises of the Spirit contained in the fourteenth 
and two following chapters of John's Gospel, and on the pro- 
mise recorded in Luke xi. 13, as much as on any other promise 
of Holy Writ, that our modern teachers encourage us to hope 
that the Spirit of God shall be with us to comfort, to guide, to 
convince us, and to take of the things of Jesus and apply them 
to our hearts ? 

If this be so, why should we expect Inspiration, given of 
old in accordance with those promises, to make the New Tes- 



136 WHAT IS THE TRUE MEANING, ETC. 

tament writings or writers infallible, while Inspiration, given 
now-a-days in accordance with, and in fulfilment of, the same 
promises, leaves us, and all modern Christians since, some 
undefined epoch subsequent to the first century, inspired but 
fallible ? 



Definition of the Term ''Inspiration." 
Thus, after a careful examination of the Scriptures, and after 
noticing the usage of Christendom, we conclude that, although 
there has for many centuries existed a false and superstitious 
opinion in favour of inspirational infallibility, yet there still is 
recognised and admitted, among all believers, the ancient, 
Scriptural, and only true idea of Inspiration according to which 
the term signifies that action of the divine Spirit by which, apart 
from any idea of infallibility \ all that is good, in man, beast, or 
matter, is originated and sustained : and, moreover, we conclude 
that, if the internal contents and the historical effects of Holy 
Writ are grander and better than those of any other book, then 
the Bible must be regarded as the best, and therefore the most 
richly inspired, book in the world : and yet, further, we con- 
clude that every thing, which has any divinely bestowed 
excellence («. e. any inspiration) in it, is to be respected on 
account of its excellence per se, and still more on account of 
that excellence being recognised as coming from God; so that, 
if the Bible be, as we believe and as we hope presently to 
show, the best and most richly inspired book, it will, as a 
consequence, be reasonably entitled to the devoutest reverence 
from all men who wish to be either good or wise. 



BOOK IT. 



WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHOBITY OF HOLY WKIT? 
CHAPTEE I. 

INTRODUCTORY MATTER. 



Section 1. — The Present Position of our Argument 
In the course of the preceding pages we have seen that, what- 
ever our educational prejudices or a priori anticipation may 
have led us to suppose, the facts which are apparent on the 
page of Holy Writ forbid our believing the Bible to be infal- 
lible. We have, moreover, seen that there is no more sub- 
stantial or satisfactory reason for our expecting the Bible to 
be free from all error than there is for our expecting that every 
believer, who is influenced for good only by the Spirit of truth, 
must be incapable of error and of sin. And we have also seen 
that only a misconception of the true, ancient, and pious idea 
of inspiration has led to the belief of the inspirational infalli- 
bility of the Bible. 

These observations and reflections are, we know, to a great 
extent, such as have been made, and the truth of them de- 
monstrated, in other books, and by far abler pens than ours. 
They are too, we are persuaded, for the most part in accordance 
with the suspicions which have sometimes alarmed the intelli- 
gence of every thoughtful reader of the Bible. Such sus- 
picions have, however, been deemed so dreadful, and their 
supposed consequences so tremendous, that few pious minds, 
who loved God and loved Christ, have ventured to keep the 
eye steadily gazing on the light which, if looked at with the 



138 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

perseverance and fidelity of an unflinching truth-lover, would 
have revealed the simple and self-consistent solution of the 
enigma, a Bible which is at once fallible, inspired, and containing 
the very word of God. 



Section 2. — Reactionary Disrespect of the Bible to be Eschewed. 

Hitherto we have seen the Bible's fallibility ; and we have 
seen that its inspiration is, in one main element at least, 
different from the present common opinion of British Christen- 
dom. A question now naturally arises as to the value of this 
fallible but inspired volume. The mere idea that the volume 
has some good in it, and is, therefore, in some degree inspired 
— that is, that God's Spirit has been, to a certain extent at 
least, at work as a co-operator in its production — ought surely 
to command our reverential study of its contents. Yet, such 
is the effect of a shock to prejudice, that very possibly some 
may be ready to exclaim, " Tell me not of the Bible's Inspira- 
" tion. If it be not infallible, how can it be an authority or a 
"rule of faith for me ? If the Bible be, after all, a book with 
" errors in it, I care nought for it. If it lay at my feet, in my 
"path, I would not stoop to pick it up." 

Such sentiments are not unnatural. We have known them 
expressed ere now, and we expect to hear them expressed 
again. But such expressions and such sentiments cannot 
endure ; for they are impulsive, and in their very nature eva- 
nescent. They do but show the rise, in him who is subject to 
them, of that astonishment in which it has been said that all 
philosophy has its origin. 

Not stoop to pick up a fallible Bible ! Are then the dialogues 
of Plato infallible ? Are the words of Seneca's morality with- 
out error? Is the book of Newton's Principia wholly without 
mistake ? Are the wisest statutes of any realm infallible ? 
Has the confession of Augsburg no liability to error ? Is the 
English Book of Common Prayer perfect? Are all the lines 
of Protestant Hymn Books wise and holy and spotless ? Nay, 
was ever the correspondence of any human father with his 
child free from all blemish ? But what should we say for the 
prudence or the piety of one who, because all writings, in 
which the mind and pen of man are employed, must be liable 
to err, and in some things have actually erred, should there- 
fore profess disregard and well nigh scorn for a parent's 



OFHOLTWUIT? 139 

counsel, a country's laws, a church's rules, or the maxims of 
a scientific teacher? 

Similarly, if the Bible be fallible, may it not still contain 
instructions which shall be profitable to us ? and should we 
not in it, as elsewhere, " prove all things, and hold fast what 
" is good ?" 

Let us, then, lay aside all unholy and unphilosophical im- 
patience, and once more take up the Book of Books. If, on 
investigation, it seem to be free from error, we may honestly 
and happily hold our childhood's thought of Scriptural in- 
fallibility. If, on the other hand, the palpable evidence of 
the Bible contradicting Astronomy, Geology, Chronology, and, 
above all, contradicting itself, and sometimes, as in the case 
of Jael, contradicting the clearest principles of morality and 
religion — if evidence like this compel us to believe that in the 
Bible the errors of man are mingled with the teachings of 
divine wisdom and goodness, let us humbly and earnestly 
apply ourselves, by all the light which God, and only God, 
has given, or shall give us, to separate the wheat from the 
chaff, the good from the evil, the word of God from the 
thoughts of men. 



Section 3. — Only when intelligently comprehended can the most 
hallowed precepts be to us God's Word. 

This can only be done by each one for himself ; for the 
holiest truth and the divinest wisdom cannot be God's word 
to any man until he perceive and know it for himself. The 
highest authority may say to me, " Tima ton patera Jcai ten 
" metera:' yet, until I know the meaning of these words, they 
are to me gibberish, and not the word of God. But let the 
lowliest child or pauper say to me, " Honour thy father and 
" thy mother," and let those words sound in harmony with my 
inmost being — as they and I are created to be in harmony 
together — and then those terms, before unintelligible and only 
gibberish, become to me the very word of God. Thus it can 
only be by reading, marking, and inwardly digesting the 
word of God, which is abundantly contained in Holy Writ, 
that any man can perceive, and know, and learn the command- 
ments of God even from the Bible. 



140 WHAT IS THE J[JST AUTHORITY 



CHAPTER II. 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS URGING TO A STUDY OF THE BIBLE AS A 
MOST INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT DOCUMENT. 

Now, in this portion of onr Essay we propose to state very 
briefly, and only in the way of suggestion, some special con- 
siderations which claim a more than ordinarily attentive stud} 
as due to the Scriptures. 



A. — The Bible's Antiquity combined with its present hold on 
the Minds of Men. 

At the outset it will be felt that the lapse of ages causes 
the light and worthless portion of any literature to perish or 
to be generally neglected. If any book has survived the trial 
of a thousand years, and especially if it still continue to be 
read by considerable numbers of human beings, there must be 
in its pages some curious information, some mighty charm, or 
some singularly lucid statements which well entitle it to the 
careful investigation of every man who wishes for instruction. 
How forcible is this plea on behalf of the Jewish and Christian 
Scriptures. Their every page is hoary with more than mil- 
lennial antiquity. They are read and re-read with professed 
and often deepening devotion by multitudes of men. They 
are read to bless the infant as the pearly drops from the bap- 
tismal font fall upon its brow and symbolize, ere consciousness 
be developed, man's universal need of a new birth, God's 
merciful provision for human regeneration, and the parent's 
earnest desire and pious resolve that the infant shall be taught 
to live in imitation of the sinless One. They are read to give 
a sanction to the teaching of the school. They are read as 
the lesson and the text in the congregation. They are read 
by the mother to strengthen her for her trials and soothe her 
in her anxieties. They are read by the stalwart man that he 
may be hallowed, calm, and dignified amidst all the strivings 
of busy duty. The sorrowing and the bereaved read them 



OF HOLT WRIT ? 141 

that they may learn the consoling hope of reunion in a tearless 
world. Even at the gaping mouth of the tomb they are read 
that they may tell of victory over death and the grave. 

Whatever may be the mysterious charm of the Bible's pages, 
the antiquity of that volume, combined with the unique fresh- 
ness of the hold it has on the minds of countless readers in 
their most solemn and most earnest moods, bespeaks for it a 
study of no ordinary care. 



B. — The Bible the only Book which, through the Ages of 
the Reformation, the Schoolmen, and the Fathers, is 
pointed back to as Informing us of the Nature, Origin, 
and Growth of Primitive Christianity. 

Attaching, too, to its antiquity is this consideration. The 
testimony of heathen writers, like Tacitus and Pliny, is suf- 
ficient to show us that more than eighteen hundred years ago, 
in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, while Pontius Pilate was 
the Roman governor of Judaea, a man named Christus* was 

* " Christ, the founder of the sect commonly called Christians, was, in the 
" reign of Tiberius, capitally punished under Pontius Pilate, the procurator : 
" and this pernicious superstition was thus, for a while, repressed only to break 
"out afresh, not merely throughout Judaea, where the evil originated, but 
" throughout Rome also, where all things atrocious and disgraceful congregate, 
"and find many patrons." — Tacitus' Annals, xv. 44: tvritte?i ahout a.d. 110. 

"Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a set of men attached to a new 
" and mischievous superstition, — Suetonius' Life of Nero, ch. 16 : written about 
a.d. 120. 

The early prevalence of Christianity, and its historical origin with a Jew 
named Christ, are abundantly proved by these quotations from unfriendly and 
misinformed heathen writers. It is easy to understand how a religion, which 
inculcated the abhorrence of all idols, and the " hating" parents, friends, and 
life itself, in comparison with the love to be borne towards the Deity; and which, 
moreover, was accused of cannibalism, because, in terms, it spoke of " eating 
"flesh" and "drinking blood," should be so evil-spoken of by Tacitus and Sue- 
tonius. The true moral character of Christianity, however, as well as its early 
prevalence, is shown in the following testimony of a wise and learned heathen, 
whose business it was to inform himself accurately on this subject. Pliny reports 
to the Emperor Trajan (about a.d. 107), Those, whom anonymous informers 
accuse to me as Christians, constitute " a vast multitude, of every age, and of 
" both sexes." * * * " The contagion of this superstition has spread, 
"not only through cities, but even through' hamlets and rural districts." * * 
The worst that can be proved against these Christians is, that " they habitually 
" meet together, on a certain clay, before dawn, to sing a hymn to Christ as G d, 
" and to bind themselves by an oath" (sacramento), " not to the perpetration ©f 
" any evil, but to avoid the guilt of theft, robbery, and adultery, and never to 
" break their word, or refuse the rendering back of that which has been entrusted 
" to their care." — Pliny's Letters, x. 97. 



142 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

the well-known teacher of a new religion at Jerusalem ; that 
this man was crucified, in the hope that his heresy might be 
stifled ; but that, instead of this hope being realised, upon his 
death the number of his disciples spread, within a few years, 
so as to have reached Eome itself, and so as to count as an 
important sect in that metropolis, while, in the intervening 
provinces of the empire, the religion of this Christus had 
spread everywhere, and drawn to itself votaries, in town and 
hamlet, of every age and of both sexes, so that the interests of 
the idol-makers and idol- worshippers were seriously threatened 
— not to say materially damaged. Now, the remnants of this 
amazingly prevalent and suddenly spread religion are amongst 
us to this day; and, with various intermixtures of Judaism and 
heathenism, as well as of the patristic and scholastic theologies, 
this religion of Christus or Chrestus (as some have called him) 
has triumphantly held its sway in the general course of the 
world's history from the days of Pliny and Tacitus till our own 
time. 

Without at present referring to the badness or the goodness 
of this religion, it must surely be an important problem for 
every student of his own human nature, and for all who wish 
to consider the possible relation of duty or otherwise in which 
we may stand to a Creator, to ascertain what were the original 
and pure ideas of Christus and his immediate followers by the 
dispersion of which they changed the worship of the civilized 
world, and produced such a revolution as was then, at all 
events, without a parallel, and as deserved, according to the 
testimony of the heathen historians, the astonishing description 
that "it had turned the world upside down." Where, then, 
are we to seek for the genuine principles by which Christus 
and his disciples or apostles effected this manifestly stupen- 
dous revolution ? Is it probable that the system now called 
Christianity is identical with Christ's religion ? Do all the 
sects which assume to themselves the epithet " Christian" 
rest their teaching upon the same principles as did Christus of 
old ? If so, those principles should be common to all the 
sects : but if, on the other hand, many of the sects have quite 
different principles — some insisting on the authority of the 
Pope ; some on the decisions of general councils ; some on 
the written pages of the Bible ; some on the inner light kindled 
by the Holy Spirit in every individual believer's mind ; some 
asserting the unmixed sinfulness of human nature ; some ap- 



OF HOLY WRIT ? 143 

pealing to the good that is left in fallen man as the very stock 
on to which Christian excellence is to be grafted; some teach- 
ing the indispensableness of a human ministry or priesthood 
to the continuance of vital religion ; some vindicating the 
sufficiency and independence of each member of Christ as in 
direct communion with the head of the Church ; some assert- 
ing, some modifying, and some denying the everlastingness 
of future rewards or punishments — if thus the various sects 
have manifold and diverse principles of then Christianity, 
then how shall the inquirer decide which are the more recent 
additions or alterations ? and which are the primal doctrines 
of Christ? What teaching was it that really checked the 
adoration of Jupiter and Venus, and the other ancient deities ? 
What portion of modern Christianity is a subsequent innova- 
tion which has, advantageously or otherwise, been superadded 
to that potent scheme which made probably — almost cer- 
tainly* — as many converts to itself in the first fifty years of 
its existence as have been made for it in all the last eighteen 
centuries? Nay, how know we that the mysteries of the 
primal faith have not been wholly lost to us ? 

These are startling interrogatories, and, apart from the 
antiquity of the Bible, we see not how they can reasonably or 
satisfactorily be answered. The slightest acquaintance with 
history suffices to show that Christianity has undergone at 
least two, and probably three, great transformations. In the 
sixteenth century, that which we, both so-called Catholics and 
so-called Protestants, regard as Christianity underwent an 
historically manifest change. Out of the then current systems 
of religion and theology, the mental difficulties and labours 
of Luther and Melancthon, Calvin and Zuingle, and other 
such-like men, did, in the providence of God, develope the 
various systems which bear the generic title of Protestantism. 
In direct antagonism to this development of Christianity grew 
up the still more recent system which is Eomanism. The 
Catholic Church had embraced Wickliffe and many another, 
who thought as he did, until his opinions were thrown into 
form by the various theses, confessions, and sets of Articles to 

* Of course, this statement is made proportionately, not numerically. There 
are, doubtless, more millions of Christians now than there were in the first cen- 
tury: but does the number of modern Christians bear the same proportion to 
the world's present population as was borne by the number of believers at the 
end of the first century to the then existing population of the world ? 



144 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

which the first half of the sixteenth century gave birth. Then 
it was that a reactionary movement from 1545 till 1563 pro- 
nounced itself in the decrees of the Council of Trent. Thus, 
from the more comprehensive Christianity of the fifteenth cen- 
tury, all was changed. That, which had been the one — not 
unanimous but united — church then, was now divided into 
Protestantism on the one side and the Tridentine or Romanist 
system on the other. Which of these three systems was most 
like to, or was identical with, primal Christianity ? 

Or, yet again, the student of history is aware that, in the 
twelfth and thirteenth centuries, there flourished those peculiar 
teachers who, from their views prevailing in the educational 
institutions or schools of that day, received the title of School- 
men, while their doctrines were called the Scholastic and their 
whole system Scholasticism. 

Scholasticism, in all its speculations, set much by the an- 
cient philosopher Aristotle, who, more than three hundred 
years before the birth of Christ, had been a sage and teacher 
among the Greeks. The philosophy of the Schoolmen based 
itself on what it, often most erroneously, supposed to be the 
meanings of Aristotle's various sayings. These sayings were 
the principles out of which, by logical processes of words, the 
Schoolmen deduced their sciences. It was the work of Des- 
cartes, and Bacon, and others, at a subsequent period, to teach 
the world that (whereas the pure Sciences, like Mathematics, 
might be learned by a deductive process, in which the mind 
worked out logical courses of thought from certain first truths, 
called definitions, and axioms, and postulates) the mixed or 
practical 'Sciences, like Chemistry, Physiology, &c, must be 
learned by diligently observing the phenomena of nature, and 
thence gathering, by an inductive process of reasoning, those 
general truths or principles, the knowledge of which is Science. 

If the physical sciences thus became mere wordy trash 
under the treatment of the Schoolmen, so also did they base 
the science of morality on verbal definitions until, to a lament- 
able extent, the eternal differences betwixt good and evil were 
lost sight of amongst the wire-drawn niceties of subtle theo- 
retical disquisition apart from the corrective observation of 
practical common sense. 

How fared Christianity in its course through the times of 
these Schoolmen ? Were they so busy with the physical and 
moral questions mooted amongst them that they had no time 



OF HOLY WRIT ? 145 

to devote to religions inquiries ? Far from this. The most 
renowned of the school authors draw their chief fame from the 
parts they severally bore in the disputations about Christ and 
Christianity then in vogue. The Schoolmen undertook to 
interpret religion on the principles of their philosophy. So 
they got at or perverted, as the case may have been, the 
various doctrines of the Gospel. They threw these doctrines 
into the form of propositions and definitions, and then, as in 
other sciences, they proceeded from their definitions of the 
Godhead, the Trinity, the Incarnation, Justification, Predes- 
tination, &c, to deduce various schemes of religious science 
or Theology.* Thus, Thomas Aquinas had his scheme ; Duns 
Scotus his ; the Master of the Sentences his ; Abelard his ; and 
each famous Schoolman his own system of so-called Christi- 
anity. In the ages which intervened between the twelfth 
century and the Eeformation, the various systems of these 
Scholastics were propagated, defended, and regarded by their 
several partisans, as each the nearest and most exact repre- 
sentation of what Christianity truly meant. How are we to 
know which of all these theologies was most like that of 
which Tacitus and Pliny wrote ? How are we to know what 
portion of that which passes current in the present day as 
Christ's religion was really taught by Jesus ? and what por- 
tion of it is the invention of these Scholastic word-jugglers ? 

Apart from the antiquity of the Bible, we see no means of 
answering this interesting and surely not unimportant question. 

An attempt to furnish an answer may indeed be essayed : for 
it may be asserted that the Schoolmen, who thus brought 
Aristotle and their own philosophical definitions and logical 
alembics to work in the teaching of what they were pleased 
to call Christianity, had opponents. If among the Schoolmen 
there was an Abelard, there was also his sincere though bitter 
antagonist Bernard. If the Scholastics invented theological 
terms and definitions, there were others who withstood them 
with the weapons of an earlier and perhaps simpler faith which 
they had received, and which they held, as the religion of 
Christ. 

* The reader, who wishes fuller information on this interesting subject, may 
veil be referred to the noble volume of Bampton Lectures by the Bishop of 
Hereford; to Hosheirn's Ecclesiastical History; and to Hallam's " Middle Ages" 
and " Literature of Europe in the fifteenth,* sixteenth, and seventeenth cen- 
" tunes." 

L. 



146 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

Let us, then, inform ourselves what were the teachings of 
Bernard and his coadjutors in their contest with the Aris- 
totelian Schoolmen, and we shall thus possibly ascertain what 
were the genuine ideas of Christ by which he changed, for 
better or for worse, the religious opinions and practices of well 
nigh the whole Eoman world. 

This seems a plausible and promising method in which to 
prosecute our inquiry. But, no sooner do we open the extant 
volumes of those who opposed the scholastic vagaries of the 
twelfth and thirteenth centuries than we find that these writers, 
who should be the orthodox repellers of mediaeval innovation, 
draw their ammunition and their weapons, to a considerable 
extent, out of the books of the so-called " Fathers" of the 
Christian Church. These "Fathers," then, who were they? 
Five of them, and only five, were men who seemed to have 
lived in the same century as Christ and his Apostles. Of the 
extant writings of these five, who are known as the Apostolic 
fathers, only one book,* containing fifty short paragraphs or 
chapters, has any appearance whatever of being genuine; and 
this book of Clement's, his first Epistle to the Corinthians, is 
so simple and practical in all its teachings that it does not 
harmonize with the system of Christianity either as we find 
it developed amongst the orthodox men of the middle ages, or 
as it shows itself in the disputations of the Schoolmen. 

But, besides these five not voluminous writers, of whose 
alleged productions so scant a portion has any semblance of 
genuineness, we find the opponents of the Schoolmen quoting 
with great reverence the decisions and opinions of countless 
" fathers." The Schoolmen must be wrong, it is argued by 
Bernard and his party, because they contradict the writing of 
Saint Augustin, or Chrysostom, or Athanasius, or Hilary, or 
Jerome, or Clement of Alexandria, or Cyprian, or Tertrdlian, 
or Origen, or Justin Martyr, or Irenasus, or some other of the 
almost interminable catalogue of the " fathers." 

* This is the author's opinion, and in its favour many respectable testimonies 
might be adduced : but, if the reader think that all or any of the alleged extant 
productions of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, and Hermas, are genuine, 
we say, let this be conceded for the sake of argument, what then ? Not only do 
the systems of mediaeval Christianity differ toio ccelo from the visionary com- 
pound — which can hardly be called a system — of the Apostolic Fathers : but the 
fundamental ideas of these very Apostolic Fathers (e. g. those of Clement, and 
those of Barnabas or of Hermas) are as discordant as is possible. Where, then, 
except in the Bible, can we learn whether the fundamental ideas of Medievalism, 
or of Hermas, or of Barnabas, or of Clement, are most like the real ideas of 
Christus ? 



OF HOLY WRIT ? 147 

The clue for unravelling our difficulty as to what was pri- 
mitive Christianity does not seem nearer to us when we find 
that these " fathers" are quoted by the Schoolmen as readily 
and apparently with just as much force as by their opponents. 
If Bernard brings six strong passages to help him from the pen 
of Cyprian, Abelard is not at a loss for half-a-dozen as strong 
on his side of any question from another of the "fathers:" and, 
not unfrequently, from the very pages of the same "father" 
whose other words seemed opposed to Abelard. Possibly, 
then, these quotations from the fathers may have been unfairly 
or unskilfully adduced. Happily (?) the historian knows that 
vast masses of patristic literature are still extant. To the 
writings of Chrysostom and Austin and many of the others 
access is open. He may make another effort to ascertain 
under this guidance what genuine Christianity, as it came 
from the lips of Jesus, was. He may see what the fathers 
themselves tell him on this subject. But, what will be his 
disappointment when he finds that among the fathers there 
were differences, as wide, to all appearance, as those which 
now prevail among the whole range of them that profess and 
call themselves Christians ? Was not Augustin the Calvinist 
and Chrysostom the Arminian of the fathers ? Were there not 
patristic millennarians like Irenaeus and anti-millennarians like 
Origen? Were there not sacerdotalists like Cyprian, and Pres- 
byterians like Aerius (then, as now, styled Dissenters by the 
soi-disant orthodox Episcopalians) ? Were there not among 
the fathers sticklers for the literal, grammatical interpretation 
of Holy Writ, and others (e. g. Origen) who were in favour of 
a spiritual, or rather (it should be said) an allegorical mode ot 
interpretation ? In a word, is Tertuliian the only "father" in 
whose writings there remain clear marks of entire changes of 
opinion and consequent self-contradictions ? Do we not find 
puerilities, self-contradictions, and sometimes immoralities in 
the writings of almost every " father," not even excluding 
Clement of Eome with his Phoenix as an argument for the 
doctrine of the Eesurrection? 

Thus, then, does history bring us to the very threshold of 
the apostolic age. It tells us that Justin Martyr, Origen, 
Augustin, Chrysostom, and most of the influential " fathers" 
were, before their conversion to Christianity, more or less 
habituated in and conversant with the various jDhilosophies of 
their times. It tells us that there were Judaizing tendencies 



148 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITF 

early at work to corrupt, if possible, whatever may have been 
original Christianity. It tells us how Oriental dualism — with 
its twin rival spirits or powers of good and evil — strove to 
commingle itself with the religion of Christ. It tells us that, 
at Alexandria and elsewhere, Neo-Platonism, or a revived and 
altered setting forth of Plato's philosophy, was mixed with 
Christianity. We read of Gnosticism, Arianism, and innu- 
merable other sects and heresies. We see that, from the 
beginning, there have been great corrupting influences bearing 
upon Christ's religion : but history, apart from the Bible, can 
rarely tell us how much of the modern conglomerate, called 
Christianity in this nineteenth century, came from Jesus, and 
is in real accordance with his principles ? or how much of it 
is attributable to the Arian struggle of the fourth century, or 
to some other origin in thoughts and feelings most remote 
from, alien to, and out of harmony with, the real mind and 
spirit of Christ. 

This is a great problem. On the theory of modern Chris- 
tendom — the theory, namely, that eternal bliss, or eternal 
damnation, depends, in the case of every individual, to a 
great extent, if not wholly, on each man's holding the or- 
thodox creed in all its parts — it is a tremendous problem. 
But, even apart from the specific interests of Christianity, 
this is evidently a great, an important, and an interesting 
question. 

It is amazing enough to contemplate Islamism in the seventh 
century slowly drawing its first few followers to a great and 
pure enthusiasm for the worship of the one God, and then to 
see it when it takes the sword and propagates itself, by won- 
drous successes in battle, over a vast portion of the world. 
This is a sight for man to look upon with wonder. But, in 
this religious revolution of a great part of the world, one may 
trace cause and effect. There was a giant man — u a hero," 
as Mr. Carlyle would call him. His was a noble zeal by and 
bye combining with military success. Those whom Mahomet 
conquered learned from him purer religion than they possessed 
before. He taught them discipline. He even attracted their 
sensualism by his "land of the hereafter:" and thus the fol- 
lowers of the Crescent became, for a time, a strong and fanatical 
army of religionists. How they naturally succeeded in spread- 
ing their religion, and how they were, in turn, as naturally 
checked, and their onward career for ever arrested; in one o 



OF HOLY WRIT? 149 

" the great battles of trie world," need be no puzzle, but is a 
very noticeable series of causes and effects. 

In our own times, too, we have witnessed a very remarkable 
religious revolution counting its scores of thousands of prose- 
lytes in an age of cheap literature, steam engines, and the 
electric telegraph. Here again, in Mormonism, there is much 
for the student of mankind and of religion to notice : but there 
is nothing which cannot be readily accounted for. We have 
it proved and confessed that Joseph Smith and several of his 
coadjutors were by habit and in character base cheats. We 
know whence their cunning fraud was supplied with Mr. 
Spaulding's curious religious novel, which they perverted into 
the book of Mormon, and published as an alleged translation 
of the once lost but now rediscovered books of ancient Jewish 
prophets. We know how the initiated among them turned 
their position into a means of sordid gain and lustful in- 
dulgence. The promises of high wages, abundance, and the 
nearly approaching millennial glory — the assertion of miracles 
which had been wrought by Mormonite Apostles — the appeals 
to dark and mysterious passages in the Christian Scriptures — 
the notorious persecutions which unhappily they could boast 
of as showing then* sincerity and their zeal — -these various 
stimulants, added to the terrible denunciations they are wont 
to utter against those to whom they seem vainly to address 
themselves in order to their conversion, are quite sufficient to 
account for the success Mormonism has had in attracting to 
itself large numbers alike of the timid and the adventurous, 
the crafty, the hopeful, the emigratingiy disposed, and the 
ignorant. 

Thus there is nothing inexplicable in Islamism or in Mor- 
monism. We know what each of the systems was : and we 
know the principles and means by which they extended them- 
selves in the world. But, in Christianity, apart from the 
antiquity of the Bible, we should know neither what was the 
religion nor what were the means by which it was propagated. 
Yet it still has its millions of votaries among the most civilized 
dwellers on this our planet : and we are assured it possessed 
itself of a large portion of the ancient world within fifty or 
sixty years of the death of its founder. 

In all his historical researches one fact must have impressed 
itself on the notice of the student whose course we have been 
sketching. In all the critical epochs of Christian history, 



150 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

besides all other authorities, such as the decisions of the 
Schoolmen, the decrees of councils, and the sayings of 
" fathers," there is a general and devout reference to the 
teaching of certain writings as the Holy Scriptures. These 
citations are doubtless made sometimes from the books we 
call Apocryphal as well as from those we acknowledge to be 
Canonical. But that does not affect our present argument, 
which is, that, always, the disputants and writers, back to the 
earliest remnants we have of the old controversy between the 
apologist Justin and the unbelieving persecutors, and in like 
manner also back to the genuine first Epistle of Clement of 
Rome, invariably refer to or quote from some one or more of 
the writings of Paul and the others who composed the several 
portions of our New Testament. We know that there are 
some New Testament books — namely, the Apocalypse and the 
epistle of Jude, John's two last letters and Peter's second 
Epistle — of whose canonicity there may be some doubt. And 
we know, also, that many quotations which are commonly 
said to be citations of our New Testament are manifestly re- 
ferences to the traditional "sayings of Jesus and his Apostles." 
But, all this notwithstanding, it is, we think, clear that well 
nigh every particular writing of the New Testament was 
quoted distinctly as of high authority before the middle of the 
second century. In other words, it seems perfectly certain 
that, in the lifetime of many who had been contemporaries of 
Paul and of John, almost every writing which now forms part 
of the New Testament had gained a wide-spread reputation 
as a genuine and authentic account of what Christianity was, 
and of the manner in which it was propagated. This much, 
indeed, is acknowledged by Dr. Strauss, and many of those 
who, like him, have brought to this investigation the greatest 
learning and ingenuity together with the least prejudice and 
the freest habits of inquiry. 

It should be remembered that we are not at present main- 
taining that the New Testament is a wholly reliable history 
of Christianity in its origin and growth. We simply maintain 
that history points back to this volume as the only repertory 
it knows in which we may learn what was Christianity, and 
how it was spread. That the Old Testament — the book in 
whose reception both Jew and Christian have for eighteen and 
a-half centuries agreed — is the book which Jesus and his fol- 
lowers read and preached from, at all events to their Jewish 



OF HOLY WRIT? 151 

audiences, has already appeared most probable to ns. This, 
then, is our case for the antiquity of the whole Bible as claim- 
ing attentive perusal. Without the Bible, Christianity, in its 
nature and its first rapid successes, is unintelligible. 

Heathen historians assure us of the fact of some religion 
having originated with Jesus, and spread with surprising 
rapidity to a marvellous extent : but how did it spread ? The 
voice of history tells us not. It says nothing of the sword 
helping Christianity till the reign of Constantine, more than 
three hundred years after the birth of Jesus. It tells us no- 
thing of the magic, the imposture, the fraud, or the other 
means by which this religion spread. It merely testifies of 
the apparent unattractiveness, the virtues, and the atheism 
(». e. the freedom from idolatry) of the Christians, so that the 
gifted, accomplished, and sagacious Gibbon can only surmise 
that, in a world which was bad enough to crucify Jesus and 
slay many of his most intimate associates, it was the goodness 
of Christianity which commended it to the acceptance of the 
gross and demoralised multitude. 

We are not now prepared to gainsay this surmise ; but, if 
Gibbon was right in this extraordinary supposition, we are the 
more interested to know what was the peculiar excellence of 
Christ's religion, as contrasted with the holy, hopeful teaching 
of Socrates and his disciples Plato and Xenophon. What was 
it which caused Platonism, as a purifier of mankind at large, 
to stagnate, whilst Christianity flourished? High morality, 
tolerable theosophy, and the doctrines of an after world, a 
judgment, and even a resurrection of the body — these truths 
were clearly enunciated in the dialogue of the Phsedo, which, 
between three hundred and four hundred years before Christ, 
Plato wrote in Greece, the very centre of education for the 
ancient world. How was it that this religion — coming from 
so revered a teacher, in Athens, under the most favomable 
circumstances, and recorded in language than which no words 
can be more eloquent — fell almost still-bom on the ears of 
man, whereas the religion of Jesus, from wickedly notorious 
Nazareth, in despised Galilee, a district of remote and ne- 
glected Judaea,* went forth conquering and to conquer, and has 
continued to hold its grasp on the mind of man ? The only 

* For a very attractive statement of the outward circumstances of Jesus, the 
reader is referred to the Rev, John Young's " Christ of History," recently pub- 
lished by Longman & Co. 



152 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

book which professes to be able to give us information on this 
subject, by telling us what primitive Christianity was, and 
how it grew, is the Bible. We grant that the Bible which 
professes to give us this information is not infallible : but, 
still, if even it contained many and great errors, it should, for 
its antiquity, and for the reverence in which from of old it was 
held, be respectfully and most diligently examined, in order 
that we may discover — if it be possible — some faint hint in 
its pages which may teach us the world- attractive secret of 
Christ's confessedly virtuous religion. If men ransack the 
histories of Herodotus, and Thucydides, and Tacitus, to find 
any useful hints for conducting the policy and government of 
temporal states — if Galen and Hippocrates are still read by 
medical students in our day — if politicians seek wisdom and 
statecraft in the Politics of Aristotle and the Republic of 
Plato — how much more should we all search the Scriptures 
if haply we may find in their fallible records any still disre- 
garded or unappreciated maxim of wisdom, morality, and 
piety. Surely, the sole and very ancient records of Chris- 
tianity, as it came from Christ and his Apostles, must ever be 
an object of most solemn curiosity to every thinking man. 

In such reflections as these, there is sufficient cause and 
ample guarantee for every intelligent man reading the Bible 
thoughtfully, and in no light or irreverent mood. But tell such 
an one that he is to read that blessed book as the infallible word 
of Grod, and then, every time he finds an inaccuracy in the 
science, a discrepancy in the history, or an error in the gram- 
mar of the Bible, he is shocked, and his religious earnestness 
is likely to be chilled by the inevitable conviction that this 
belief in an infallible book is untrue. He is made occasionally 
unhappy by unbelief, and, in proportion to the strength of his 
intellect or the depth of his devotion, he ultimately becomes a 
callous infidel, a weak and unsanctified believer, or, in some 
rare cases, a resigned but most unsatisfied Christian. 



OF HOLT WRIT ? 153 



CHAPTER III. 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS URGING TO A STUDY OF THE BIBLE AS A 
BOOK OF VENERABLE AUTHORITY, AND AS A RULE OF FAITH. 



A. — The Bible to be revered as the Handmaid of all great 
Modern Improvements. 

Thus far, then, history, and the antiquity of our sacred 
■writings, put in a reasonable demand that the Old and New 
Testaments (in common, possibly, with some apocryphal 
writings) should be studiously and not irreverently nor super- 
stitiously examined : but the heading of this Book speaks of 
the authority of the Bible : and we are now prepared to pro- 
ceed in asserting that authority. We have already shown 
good reason for serious study of the Bible. Our next step is 
to claim for it a reverential study. This claim we ground on 
a consideration that, if the Bible, as distinct from Christianity, 
has not always been the manifest originator of all civilizations 
in Christendom, it has at all events been their handmaid, and, 
without it, they have not prospered or been any great blessing 
to mankind. 



1. — Of German, English, and Scotch Progress, as contrasted 

with Spanish and Italian Retrogression. 

We shall illustrate our argument by a reference to the 
period of the Reformation. The human mind received a great 
impulse in the fifteenth century. The printing press gave a 
novel power of disseminating thoughts new and old. The 
discovery of America, and of the passage to the East Indies by 
the Cape of Good Hope, quickened the spirit of mercantile 
adventure ; and generally set men thinking freely and inde- 
pendently on all questions. The capture of Constantinople by 
the Turks in 1453 expelled many learned men from that chief 
seat of the Eastern Empire, and they travelled westward in 



154 WHAT IS THE JOST AUTH0E1TY 

search of safety in some new home. All the old wisdom of the 
Greeks these refugees had studied : and much classical lore 
and true philosophy they were able and willing to teach to any 
ruler or people who would receive them. 

The beneficial influences of this impulse penetrated little 
into the rude and barbarous nations of Germany. It was to 
Italy — and mainly to fair Florence, the queen of cities, that 
the refugees bent their steps. There Lorenzo the Magnificent, 
as afterwards at Rome, his son, Leo the Tenth, gave them joy- 
ful welcome. The Italian cities were full of all the best arts 
and sciences that were then attainable. Homer, the Greek 
tragedians, Horace, Cicero, Plato, and Aristotle were all well . 
known in the Italian courts, and amongst the elite of Italian 
society. All seemed bright and full of promise. In Spain and 
Portugal, too, if there was somewhat less of literature and the 
fine arts, there were energy and power, active and growing 
amidst the golden walks of commerce with the East, and with 
the newly discovered West. 

In Germany, in England, and in Scotland, all was dark. 
Anticipation pointed to an immediately glorious future for the 
realms of Italy and Spain : but for the countries north of the 
Alps the prospect seemed dark indeed. 

Yet how has the fair promise of Italy and Spain, the lands 
where the Bible was overlaid by interpretations and traditions, 
been disappointed! How has history been amazed by the 
intelligence and improvement of Germany, and Scotland, and 
England, the lands where the Bible, hitherto only known by a 
few garbled extracts, and buried in its dead languages amidst 
the rubbish of monasteries, did suddenly, by various agencies 
in the providence of God, spring to light in its entirety, with- 
out authoritative commentaries, and in languages which were 
native to each realm ! Mark how, in the language of the his- 
torian Macaulay, Romanist territories are said to be distinguish- 
able from Protestant : — " From the time when the barbarians 
" overran the Western Empire, to the time of the revival of 
" letters, the influence of the Church of Rome had been generally 
*' favourable to science, to civilization, and to good government. 
" But during the last three centuries, to stunt the growth of 
"the human mind has been her chief object. Throughout 
" Christendom whatever advance has been made in knowledge, 
" in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts of life, has been made in 
" spite of her, and has everywhere been in inverse proportion to 



OF HOLY WRIT ? 155 

" her power. The loveliest and most fertile provinces of Eu- 
" rope have, under her rule, been sunk in poverty, in political 
" servitude, and in intellectual torpor, while Protestant coun- 
" tries, once proverbial for sterility and barbarism, have been 
" turned by skill and industry into gardens, and can boast of a 
" long list of heroes and statesmen, philosophers and poets. 
"Whoever, knowing what Italy and Scotland naturally are, 
" and what, four hundred years ago, they actually were, shall 
"now compare the country round Koine with the country 
"round Edinburgh, will be able to form some judgment as to 
" the tendency of Papal domination. The descent of Spain, 
" once the first among monarchies, to the lowest depths of 
" degradation ; the elevation of Holland, in spite of many 
"natural disadvantages, to a position such as no common- 
" wealth so small has ever reached, teach the same lesson. 
" Whoever passes in Germany from a Eoman Catholic to a 
" Protestant principality, in Switzerland from a Roman Catholic 
"to a Protestant canton, in Ireland from a Eoman Catholic to 
" Protestant county, finds that he has passed from a lower to 
" a higher grade of civilization. On the other side of the At- 
" lantic the same law prevails. The Protestants of the United 
" States have left far behind them the Roman Catholics of 
"Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. The Roman Catholics of Lower 
" Canada remain inert, while the whole continent round them 
"is in a ferment with Protestant activity and enterprise. The 
" French have doubtless shown an energy and an intelligence 
" which, even when misdirected, have justly entitled them to 
" be called a great people. But this apparent exception, when 
" examined, will be found to confirm the rule ; for in no coun- 
" try that is called Roman Catholic has the Roman Catholic 
" Church, during several generations, possessed so little au- 
" thority as in France." — Hist, of Engl., vol. i.,p. 48, 3rd edition. 
These words of the liberal historian we thoroughly adopt, and 
we add to them this remark that, wherever there is Protestant 
well-doing, its characteristic is an open Bible among the peo- 
ple. Wherever there is the modern blight of Romanism, there 
is either a suppressed Bible, or one unwillingly* given to the 
people, and accompanied by authoritative interpretations. 

* An evidence of this unwillingness manifests itself, not only in the advice of 
Priests, but in the high price at which the Douay Bible is offered for gale, in 
comparison with the tenpence for which an English Bible, according to the re- 
ceived version, can be purchased. 



156 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

Thus, then, it appears that those states which in the sixteenth 
century started in the race of modern civilization, with every 
advantage except a popular love for and knowledge of the 
Bible, have sunk into political insignificance, have lost their 
intellectual and commercial pre-eminence, and have oppressed 
their subjects into a condition of habitual sloth, inactivity, and 
vice, varied by occasional outbreaks of rebellion. While, on 
the other hand, those states which, at the commencement of 
modern civilization, seemed to be the lowest, the least, and the 
last, have in the meanwhile obtained, and generally learned to 
love, the Bible ; and have likewise made favourable progress 
in other respects, until they are the very leaders of all that is 
noble, generous, and refined. We acknowledge that many 
causes have been at work co-operating to produce such a 
change of position among the nations of Europe. We do not 
assert that the Bible has been the sole cause of this change. 
But it does appear to us quite noteworthy that there should 
be such an unvarying experience of improvement in people 
who revere and study the Holy Scriptures, and of debasement 
in those who neglect or know not those hallowed writings. 



2. — Of the English as Contrasted with the French 
Revolution. 

Let us, however, take another illustration. The oppressions 
of feudalism, and the iniquitous tyranny of monarchs, brought 
on at different times political rebellion and revolution in Eng- 
land and in France. In each country the course of events had 
its great resemblances and its striking contrasts. 

Among the resemblances, even of detail, and not only of 
principle, it may suffice to name the facts that Charles I., in 
England, and Louis XVI., in France, were both slain by their 
subjects ; and the established church in each country was, for 
a time at least, overthrown. The duration of the English 
Eevolution was complete in forty-seven years, if we count, as 
should be done, from the rebellion in 1641 to the accession of 
William of Orange in 1688. The French Eevolution, if we 
suppose that which is much to be wished, came recently to its 
completion, after a duration of rather more than sixty years. 
Thus each national struggle for its own amelioration was con- 
tinued during about half a century. There are many other — 



OF HOLT WRIT ? 157 

and of those not a few important — points of resemblance be- 
tween the two Revolutions : but we content ourselves with 
the notice of these. Now, on looking to the points of contrast, 
we find that, whereas the issue of the French Revolution is a 
military and sacerdotal* despotism, with a strict censorship of 
the press — such a despotism, indeed, as would be wholly in- 
tolerable but for the wisdom and magnanimity of the present 
Emperor — in England the result of the Revolution was a Con- 
stitutional Government ; in which the elected representatives 
could alone propose or impose taxes ; in which the generosity 
and nobleness that should, and for the most part, perhaps, do, 
attach to high birth, are allowed to bear their part in giving a 
tone to our policy and legislation ; and in which the Monarch 
rules on definite conditions, and with wise and liberal stipula- 
tions. Our Revolution left us perfect freedom of person and 
of thought — that freedom being only so far limited in any 
direction as to prevent its becoming palpable, injurious licen- 
tiousness. Thus, in their results, these two great national 
movements are strongly contrasted. 

In the course of the French Revolution, not alone were 
Paris and Lyons, and the provinces generally, deluged with 
the blood of civil feud in the too famous Reign of Terror, but 
Europe w^as made a dreadful battle-field, where at one time 
Republican Propagandism fought for victory, and at another 
the vast ambition of a genius, disciplined in all things save 
spiritual self-government, grasped at world-wide power. In 
the course of the English Revolution there were, as seems in- 
evitable in a Revolution, dreadful struggles on the field of 
battle and great sufferings in sieges, but the army was so dis- 
ciplined that, even during civil war, there was little that could 
be called disorderly violence. And, when the rebellious Re- 
volutionary party had driven their adversaries from the field, 
and established themselves in power, they so bore themselves 
in the administration of affairs at home and abroad that in 
their own country were safety, industry, peace, and prosperity; 
and in every foreign land the flag of England was dreaded 
or respected. Thus, again, in their courses, these national 
changes were marked by wide differences. 

Another contrast between them was, that, in France, they 

* I say " sacerdotal," because of the influential aid, which it is no secret, 
that the emissaries of the Pope in France give and receive in the highest 
quarters. 



158 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

who from time to time bore the chief power replaced the re- 
ligion they overthrew first with Atheism, then with the 
meretricious splendour of a goddess of Eeason, then with the 
worship of an abstract Supreme Being, and lastly with a dis- 
credited but politically convenient Romanism. In a word, the 
French Revolutionists essayed to ignore God, and do without 
religion ; but, finding this impossible, they tried different sorts 
of divine worship, in none of which was the Bible recognised 
as a familiar and popular instructor. In England, on the other 
hand, the religion which was displaced was one which pro- 
fessed to regard the Bible as the best teacher in the world ; 
and both the parties, who had a share in the overthrow of 
Episcopacy, not only professed a deep reverence for Chris- 
tianity, but avowed their disregard for and opposition to every 
authority which did not base its claim to man's submission on 
the Bible and the Bible alone. 

Here, then, in the honour or disregard of the Bible, was 
another manifest and most marked contrast between these two 
Revolutions. We are far from saying that the study of the 
Bible was the only cause why one Revolution was conducted 
with comparative order and little violence — why one Revolu- 
tion made England's position among the nations glorious and 
useful, whilst the other embroiled France with all the rest of 
Europe, and brought a foreign army of occupation into the 
streets of Paris — why one country obtained civil, political, and 
religious liberty, while the other was subjected to absolutism 
and a censorship of the press : but we do think that the an- 
cient and, as we have already seen, curiously interesting Book, 
which was thought unworthy of attention, or even deserving 
of scorn, by the French Revolutionists, and which was con- 
stantly and intimately revered as a divine authority by all the 
parties of the English Revolution, must be read with a feeling 
of deep reverence by every intelligent, truth-loving man who 
has even such a smattering of historical knowledge, as is im- 
plied in the statements just made. And the more deeply any 
student shall prosecute this investigation, the more, we are 
persuaded, will he learn to read the Bible, not only with the 
intensest curiosity, but with a deepening reverence. For 
instance, if he looks into the episodes of cruelty which disgrace 
even the English Revolution, he will find that the unutterable 
horrors practised by Kirke and by Judge Jeffries in his Bloody 
Assize were instigated by a Prince who regarded the Bible as 



OF HOLT WRIT ? 159 

only a safe book when one read it under the guidance of a 
priest, who should interpret its precepts in accordance with 
patristic and scholastic theology, as sanctioned by Popes and 
general Councils : and he will find that the infamous Claver- 
house, who slaughtered the Covenanters, and gloried in apply- 
ing the boot and the screw to some unhappy heretic, seems to 
have been himself wholly regardless of the Bible, whilst he 
too was an instrument in the hands of the priest-ridden James 
and his profligate predecessor Charles II. 



3. — Of the Charitable and Missionary Enterprises of the 
last Half Century. 

Yet, again we may take another illustration of the manner 
in which the Bible has been present and influential in a great 
national improvement. Within the last half century consider 
how this realm of England has been transformed with refer- 
ence to inebriety in the wealthier classes, and with reference 
to profane and indecent language. Consider how Societies for 
domestic and foreign purposes of charity have sprung up 
and multiplied; consider the Sunday Schools, the National 
Schools, the Bagged Schools, and the Eeformatories ; con- 
sider the Female Penitentiaries, the Institutions for the Deaf 
and Dumb and for the Blind; and consider all the multi- 
tudinous Missionary Societies ; and then let the question be 
asked, what is the one Society on which all the others draw, of 
whose help all the others avail themselves, and in the support 
of which well nigh all the individuals and sects, which are 
divided in their approbation and patronage of the other so- 
cieties, unite as in at least one visible bond by which their 
religious fellowship is shown? Consider what is this great 
and central Society ? The only answer consistent with the 
demands of truth is, the Society for printing and disseminating 
the Bible without note or comment. Can there be a doubt 
of the beneficial effects of the charitable revolution in this 
country? Are not those effects visible in the men and women 
who have been reclaimed from vice or healed of disease ? in 
the spread of education and intelligence among all orders of 
our community? and in the increasing sympathies, benevo- 
lences, and liberality of our own hearts ? 



160 WHA.T IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

In producing this charitable revolution, as it may well be 
called, who have borne so great and influential a part as those 
whom the historian of enthusiasm styles "the Clapham Sect?" 
The " Evangelical" party — however we may protest against 
and deplore their egregious errors — must be acknowledged as 
chief workers in this undertaking of the half century ; and, 
assuredly, it needs no argument to show that the Bible, and 
the Bible only, is the shibboleth of tins party. Here again, 
then, the Bible, if not the only cause of this revolution, has 
been a revered subject of study and source of guidance among 
those who have been the chief — almost the sole — accomplishes 
of this excellent work.* 

If, now, from the chief movers of this charitable machinery 
at home, we turn our gaze to the mode of operation, even in 
regions far remote from us, we find that with the Moravians, 
in their glorious work of civilizing and elevating the Esqui- 
maux, the Greenlanders, and even the miserable leprous 
Africans, the Bible has been a conspicuous text book. So, too, 
in the Nonconformist Missions to the South Sea Islands. So, 
too, in the American Missions to Syria and other parts of the 
world. So, too, with the English Church Missionary Society, 
in its wonderful work of humanizing, and educating, and sanc- 
tifying the recaptured slave negroes at Sierra Leone, and in 
its work of almost Apostolical rapidity in converting the cruel 
cannibals of New Zealand in 1826 into the peaceful, intelligent, 
corn-growing New Zealanders of the present day. In all these 
instances, and in many more, the Bible is put forward as the 
chief instrument bythermissionaries who accomplish the several 
works. It is the Bible they translate ; the Bible they teach 
and preach ; and the Bible which, with the Divine blessing, 
produces the effect which all men can see, and in which all 
good men rejoice. 

Such being the manner in which we find, for centuries past, 
and in our own day, that the Bible has been either itself pro- 
ducing manifold and great advantages to man, as is confessed 
among the Missionaries, or else has been the cherished and 

* If any reader be inclined to ask. Why then interfere with this Bible which, 
in the hands of the " Evangelicals," has been called infallible, and has effected so 
much good? Our answer is, Because we love this blessed Book, and would fain 
not see it exposed to ridicule by being called infallible; and because we are per- 
suaded that the Bible, in its true character of an inspired but fallible book, will 
do all its present good' work, and a great deal besides, which now this false name 
" infallible " prevents its accomplishing. 



OF HOLY WRIT? 161 

revered companion, guide, and comforter of those who have, 
with wondrous wisdom, conducted mighty revolutions, through 
their feverish and abnormal stages, to legitimate and most 
blessed conclusions — what wise or thoughtful student will 
spurn the Bible ? nay, what thinking man will not take up 
this Book of Books with a respect and a preparedness to assent 
to its maxims, and conform himself to its suggestions, which 
he yields to no other book until, at least, he has studied 
its pages, and closely examined for himself its wisdom or 
its folly? 



On these Grounds Scriptural Authority is Maintainable. 

This is the way in which we are prepared to claim from all 
wise and earnest men a reverence for the as yet unopened 
Bible. To this extent we assert the authority of Holy Writ, 
independently of any examination of what, or how mysterious, 
or how natural, may be the contents of the Sacred Volume. 
Let a clear- minded and conscientious man open the Bible with 
these, and only these, sentiments of veneration for biblical 
authority, and he will not be amazed and horrified into scep- 
ticism and incredulity if he find that, in this spiritual mine, 
the veins of precious ore, however rich and however numerous, 
lie imbedded in a preponderance of common earth, are for the 
most part hidden by a deep covering of worthless, though 
perhaps curious and interesting, strata, and generally must be 
dug for with assiduity. 



If Infallibility be Claimed, Authorlty is Insecure. 

But reverse the position. Tell the serious, strong-minded 
student that the book he has been taught by history to revere 
is not only a good and holy book, containing the word of God 
to man, but is the infallible word of God, in which there is no 
error — the word of God, only so spoken, through man's instru- 
mentality, as the musician's thrilling tones are produced by the 
agency of an organ ; tell man so when he is just about, for the 
first time in his life, earnestly, with the thirst of curiosity and 
the reverence of admiration, to open and read the pages of his 

M. 



162 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

Bible ; tell liim so of the book written by the Spirit's dicta- 
tion, and of its consequent freedom from all admixture of 
human error ; and we do not say that you will at first do more 
than intensify his awe and augment his solemn veneration of 
the mysterious volume. But he presently opens the book, and 
in its first page he learns, or is confirmed in, the glorious, 
he art- affecting truth, that matter had a beginning, and that 
the spiritual Self- existent, whom we call God, was its and our 
sovereign Creator. Our student is charmed, as Longinus and 
every man of judgment has been, with the religion-inspiring 
record of the creative word, "Light be, and Light was." The 
declared beneficence of the God who saw the good which was 
in all his work, and who blessed every thing that He had 
made, sounds as a noble truth in the student's ear — a truth 
which sets him on much humbling self-examination and on 
much solemn reflection. Thus far our student can appreciate 
the singular honour that the wise and great have so often and 
so conspicuously given to the Bible : but, alas ! you have told 
him that the Holy Book is infallible ; and, before he passes 
from its first page, he is led to believe that the heavens and 
the earth, and all the host of them, were made in six days, 
whereas the indelible testimonies of matter, sense, and reason 
combine to assure him that this earth, with all the various 
populations that have in its younger days dwelt on it and 
perished in its ruins, is countless millions of years old, instead 
of being less than 6000 years of age, as the received scriptural 
chronology would represent it. Then, moreover, our student 
finds that, according to the account in Genesis, there was light, 
and there were the alternations of day and night, and the pro- 
cesses of vegetation were carried on, before that fourth day, 
whose special product was the sun, and moon, and stars. 
Here, and at the close of each day's earnest study of the 
Bible, our student finds himself amazed to understand how an 
infallible book can contradict the notable truths of science, or 
how it can sometimes even contradict itself. 

He reflects, and strives to extricate himself from the mazes 
of obscurity in which his devotion is being numbed no less 
than his intellect is puzzled. But, even the power of reflection 
cannot solve the mystery of an infallible book with errors in 
it. In this state of mind multitudes of men are habituated 
until they become dead to all practical sense of religion and 
spirituality. 



or HOLY writ? 163 



too probable course of a student mlsled by errors in a 
Supposed Infallible Book. 

Under some circumstances, the troubled student may ask 
advice from his clergyman. In which case too many pastors 
will tell him, as the ultimate result of their own reading, and 
experience, and belief, that God's word (by which they mean 
the whole Bible) must be true, though all science and every 
man should be a liar : and thus our inquirer is left with the two 
opposing statements, only more vigorously contradicting one 
another since the clergyman was consulted. On the one side 
are ranged the senses and intellectual faculties God has 
given us, — the world God has made, and the lessons these 
senses and faculties learn from the world so made : this is 
scientific truth. On the other side are the statements of a 
Book which, without proving their assertion, men declare to 
be infallible, and therefore authoritative. What a combat is 
this which must be fought in the mind of every man of ordinary 
seriousness and intelligence ! If in our student the religious 
ideas are much stronger than the intellectual powers, super- 
stition will prevail, and he will believe the Bible's infallibility 
in spite of evidence, and in spite of- misgivings, which, with 
reference to Papal or Ecclesiastical infallibility, the pen of 
Archbishop Whately has thus depicted : — " But this freedom 
"from all uneasy doubt, — a desire for which leads to that 
" craving for infallibility I have been speaking of, — this, after 
" all, is not always attained by such a procedure. A lurking 
" suspicion will often remain, — which a man vainly endeavours 
" to stifle, — that the foundation is not sound. The super- 
" structure indeed may be complete. Once granted that the 
" church, sect, party, or leader, we have taken as our guide, is 
" perfectly infallible, and there is an end of all doubts and 
"cares respecting particular points. But an uneasy doubt 
" will sometimes haunt a man, — in spite of his efforts to repress 
" it, and however strenuously he may deny, even to himself, 
" its existence, — whether the infallibility claimed, which is the 
" basis of the whole fabric, be really well established. A sus- 
" picion will occasionally cross the mind, however strenuously 
" repelled, Is there not a lie in my right hand? And the reluc- 
" tance often shown to examine the foundation, and ascertain 
" whether it is really sound, is an indication, not of full con- 



164 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

" fidence in its firmness, but of a lurking suspicion that it will 
" not bear examining." — Search after Infallibility, p. 315, 3rd 
edition. If, however, the mind of our student is logical rather 
than reverential in its tendencies and habits, unbelief of bibli- 
cal infallibility will take hold of him, and he will probably 
regard himself, and, as far as he is really known, will be re- 
garded by others, as an unbeliever even of Christ's maxims 
and hopes. Thus, we are persuaded, numbers of men lose 
much of the advantage and benefit of the grandest means of 
spiritual culture and mental development which has ever been . 
introduced into the world. 

If our student had been left to reverence the Bible as likely 
to be the best and wisest of books, and had he not been told 
it was infallible, its errors would have been traced by him to 
their right sources, in the ignorance of its human authors, and 
in the darkness or barbarism of the times referred to, and he 
would have found no extraordinary or insurmountable dif- 
ficulties which should act as stumbling-blocks either to his 
religious trust or to his intellectual integrity. If our student 
be told by his pastor or friend that the Bible is fallible in all 
subjects except religion and (perhaps) morality — apart from 
the fact that the Bible contains obvious errors and self-contra- 
dictions even on these subjects — we opine that our student 
will find no small discomfort and obstruction in ascertaining 
which subjects are religious and which are not religious ? and 
to which category, fallible or infallible, those subjects belong 
in which, as in the miraculous conception and the Incarnation, 
history and religion appear inseparably blended ? 

This mode of playing fast and loose with infallibility, 
although it is upheld by learned and reverend men like 
Bishops Whately and Hinds, and many others of its patrons, 
ancient and modern, does seem to us most unsatisfactory and 
perilous ; unsatisfactory, inasmuch as many of its distinctions 
between the religious and the profane are wholly arbitrary, 
and correspond to no real differences : perilous, because the 
practice of recognising distinctions in serious matters, where 
there are no differences, is a lesson in casuistry, or, in other 
words, a lesson in the art of finding excuses and making pal- 
liations which disguise the hideousness of crime and decorate 
the ugliness of vice. Where a barrister knows that he is by 
casuistry merely juggling with words, in order to mislead 
twelve simple-minded jurymen, he may possibly derive no 



or HOLY WRIT? 165 

harm from the practice ; but, if a man, as he reflects in his 
secret holy of holies, may say, The history and science of the 
first chapter in Genesis are not infallible, for they are not a 
subject of religious instruction, except in so far as they embody 
the principles — Matter had a beginning, and there was one 
self-existent. Creator ; why may not the same man say that 
he deems the historical evidence for the miraculous conception 
insufficient to support so stupendous a dogma : the history in 
the early chapters of Matthew and Luke is, he thinks, not 
infallible, for it is not religious instruction, except in so far as 
it embodies the principles, Nothing is too difficult for God — 
No sacrifice is too great for his love to make for our good ? 
Now, to hold the former of these positions, in reference to the 
Mosaic narrative of the creation, as is commonly done by the 
writers of a certain school, and yet to abjure and disavow the 
latter position with reference to the evangelical account of the 
miraculous conception, seems to us a distinction without a 
difference, a case of unsatisfactory and perilous casuistry. On 
such considerations as these, as well as because it is untrue, 
we reject this mode of vindicating an infallible authority for 
Scripture by allowing that the Bible is fallible in the " tem- 
" poral accidents of spiritual things," but asserting still that 
it is infallibie in the spiritual tilings themselves. 



Recognition of Scriptural Fallibility the Student's only 

Safe Course. 

We hold that position to be alone safe and alone true which 
acknowledges that we can conceive of only one Infallible, and 
that is God. All else, that we know, is fallible — that is, 
mixed with error or liable to err. The authority, then, that 
we claim for the book which has been from of old so revered, 
and which is still so generally represented as a teacher of all 
that is good, useful, and happy — this authority which we claim 
for the Bible, because of its reputation, over every man, even 
before he opens the book, or has read or heard a syllable of its 
contents — is, not that he should expect to find infalhbility or 
freedom from error in the whole book, or in any part of it, but 
that he should study it with the same kind of reverence, com- 
bined with discriminating judgment of the good and the evil, 



168 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

the wise and the unwise, with, which he would listen to a 
father or a mother whom, though far from infallible, Provi- 
dence or God had given him as his divinely appointed teacher, 
guardian, and authority. 

To one who reads in this frame of mind, each saying of the 
Bible will be respected till it has been sifted ; and even " the 
" weak and beggarly" parts (to use Paul's expression) will be 
looked upon with filial fondness for the sake of those richer 
thoughts, and teachings, and mercies, with which they have 
been associated. Thus, accounts of the creation, histories of 
Samson or of Jael, and narratives of angelic songs or mira- 
culous conceptions, must each be judged, and held fast if it be 
good ; otherwise, be thrown away as weak and untrue : but, 
still, the book will be the venerable book which alone is likely 
to teach what was the religion to which the Eoman world was 
converted by Jesus, and Paul, and others of old — still the book 
will be revered as that which is doing, and has done, such a 
vast amount of good : and, as our student reads and marks 
daily more and more, he will discover increasingly what we 
shall now endeavour to establish — namely, that the contents 
of the Bible are such as, notwithstanding Jewish prejudices, 
and fables, and all other real or conceivable drawbacks, still 
place the Bible at the head of all literature, sacred and profane. 



B. — Argument for the Authority of Holy Writ, from its 
being Equal, at least, to the Best Excellences of the 
most Civilized Heathen Religion. 

We think it may be shown that — great as are many of the 
excellences in heathen philosophy — the religion of the Bible 
is not surpassed even by these. It is too common for men 
who call themselves Christians, and even Christian teachers, 
to misrepresent human nature in general, and the heathen 
philosophers in particular, and then to show how far beyond 
humanity and philosophy the religion of Christ, as taught in 
the Bible, carries us. We are willing to believe that these 
misrepresentations of the heathens proceed most frequently 
from ignorance, and not from any purpose of pious fraud j but 
surely they, whose business and sole occupation is to teach 
religion in this enlightened age, and in the most refined so- 



OF HOLY WRIT? 167 

cieties of Europe and America, should be at the pains to 
ascertain what was truly the religion of the ancients before 
they risk their own reputation and, to a great extent, disparage 
the credibility and efficiency of Christ's religion by assertions 
about heathen philosophy which can be seen to be false by 
any man who reads the cheap translations of the classics 
which now abound in every large book-shop. 

It is unnecessary for us to quote the words of Aristotle, or 
Cicero, or Cleanthes, or Seneca, or of any number of good 
heathen writers. Our purpose is to show that there are in the 
Book, which records the origin, nature, and growth of the re- 
ligion of Jesus, superiorities by which it far transcends any 
other religion ; and, in order to attain this object, we shall 
' first give as fair a representation as we can of that religion 
which, being incomparably the best of Heathen systems, pro- 
fesses to be derived from Socrates, and is handed down to us 
by two of his disciples, in the rich dialogues which Plato 
wrote, and in the lucid memoirs (memorabilia) that Xenophon 
bequeathed to mankind. 

It is impossible to say how much of this system originated 
with Socrates, how much he borrowed from his predecessors, 
or how much really came from Plato and Xenophon. We 
shall speak of the whole system as that of Socrates. 

The rule for life according to this philosopher was justice 
and integrity towards all men, and piety as consisting in 
reverence towards the gods, and not altogether excluding a 
compliance with the popular custom of sacrificing to the 
various deities. The highest attainable condition for man, 
and indeed the approved work for which his Creator destined 
him, was the strengthening and purifying his intellect, or 
rather his soul, by deep researches in geometry and mathe- 
matics, and by contemplating those abstract general concep- 
tions which Socrates designated ideas, and which he regarded 
as the only glorious realities which, existing in the Divine 
mind, were merely reflected in the base, corporeal shadows 
that the vulgar deem solid and substantial. In modem 
phraseology, Socrates would say — The laborious, the mechani- 
cal, and the practical are mean : but man's highest aim, which 
I confess can be attained but by a few, is to think little of food, 
and dress, and venery, and all sensuous gratifications, and 
rather to occupy himself in the pure contemplation of truth 
and knowledge of every kind. When life is drawing near to 



168 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

its close, the just and pious man has nothing to dread in death. 
The good and pious philosopher may even rejoice. 

It is difficult for any thing to surpass the exquisite beauty 
and calm propriety with which, in the dialogue called the 
Phsedo, Socrates is represented as dying a martyr to the truth 
he had taught, and a forgiving witness to the cruel wicked- 
ness of his countrymen, who, on a charge that he was corrupt- 
ing the youth of Athens by teaching them atheism and impiety, 
condemned him to die by drinking the poisonous juice of the 
hemlock. The Phasdo is the death scene of Socrates. In it 
he takes leave of his wife, descants on the most solemn truths 
with his numerous friends, converses kindly and in tones of 
generous forgiveness with the poison-bearer, his own execu- 
tioner, drinks the deadly draught, and then gently dies in 
converse with his sorrowing friends. 

In the course of this scene, Socrates asserts his perfect readi- 
ness to die. He shows no fear nor any doubt. He speaks of 
happiness which, as a just and pious lover of wisdom, he hopes 
to attain in passing from this world to another, where the 
same deities rule, and where he looks forward to the society 
of beings as good as any on earth, and where he may even 
meet the just, and holy, and wise men of former generations. 
He here alludes to the future judgment ; and in another of 
Plato's dialogues (the Gorgias) Socrates indicates his own 
view of that future judgment in a charming apologue, which 
tells how the gods, to prevent fraud or injustice occurring by 
kings and great men and hypocrites appearing to the judges 
better and fairer than they really were, ordained that in the 
judgment the departed should not come before the judges in 
the dense and often deceptive integuments of flesh and body, 
but should be stripped of all appearances, in order that the 
ordeal might be gone through, not merely face to face, but 
soul to soul. Such, and so searchingly righteous, was the 
future judgment in which Socrates believed. From this tri- 
bunal Socrates taught that there were three awards. Parricides 
and the worst of criminals were plunged into Tartarus, from 
whose miserable shades no weary soul might ever find escape. 
Bad men, whose guilt, however, was of a lighter hue, passed 
into another probationary world, after they had endured for an 
indefinite period the fiery discipline of purgatory. Good men 
were, after judgment, admitted to that holy and better world 
into which Socrates rejoiced to think that he was about to pass. 



OF HOLY WRIT? 169 

This is, we think, a fair, though, of course, a very inadequate 
summary of the excellences of the Socratic religion. It will 
be manifest to the reader how incorrect are the interpretations 
Ave often hear popular theologians put upon such words as 
those of Paul, in which he says that Jesus "brought life and 
" immortality to light." Our present object, however, is not 
to condemn the m aligners of heathen philosophy, but to show 
that — excellent as was much, very much, of what Socrates 
taught — the Bible yet surpasses, far surpasses, its every ex- 
cellence, and, on this consideration, is a worthy authority for 
our moral and religious guidance in life, and, in this sense, a 
rule of faith to us. 

In prosecuting this part of our subject, our first inquiry may 
well be whether there is any point in this summary of the 
chief excellences of Socratic religion which has no equivalent 
in the doctrines of the Bible. As a rule for life, the Bible, 
teaching men to love all others as themselves, and to do to 
others as they would others should do to them, is certainly 
equal to the Academic demand that one should be just, The 
Bible, teaching man to love God with all his heart, and all his 
mind, and all his strength, is not surpassed by the requirement 
of piety which we have noticed was made by Socrates. We 
are not afraid to set the abstract refined philosopher, who is 
the beau-ideal of Academic humanity, in comparison with the 
account of him who was reputed to be the son of a carpenter 
at Nazareth, yet who, as a boy, thought so deeply, that all 
who heard him partaking of the catechetical instruction of the 
doctors at Jerusalem were filled with wonder at his knowledge 
and sagacity. Our ideal man, too, was, like Socrates, a teacher. 
He spoke with such power and love to the common people, as 
well as to his immediate followers, that they heard him gladly, 
and felt that his words carried with them the weight and 
authority of convincing truth. His conception of the highest 
aim for man was to witness to the truth, to go about doing 
good, to be filled with love even of one's foes, and rather to 
minister to the wants and happiness of others than to seek 
their ministrations for ourselves. Such was his ideal of human 
excellence, and he persisted in it to the last, even praying for 
and excusing his enemies while they put him to a most cruel 
and ignominious death. In comparison with the Socratic hope 
in death, the Bible tells us that friends were taught to rejoice 
that the Son of Man was going to his Father; and, ag;ain, that 



170 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

men may rise to such, a condition as to feel that death — which, 
implies a crown of glory and the holiest and most enduring 
companionship with Grod, and angels, and the spirits of just men 
made perfect — is, in a selfish point of view, preferable to life. 

As to the spotless purity and thorough searehingness of the 
future judgment pourtrayed in the Bible, nothing can be more 
solemn or more grand. In that day the secrets of all hearts 
shall be revealed, and every man shall receive according to his 
works, as indicating his disposition and habit of mind and 
heart. The award was threefold in the Socratic belief, ever- 
lasting, purgatorial, blissful. The Bible contemplates a two- 
fold award. The righteous shall go into eternal happiness, 
and the wicked into eternal misery. It knows nothing of a 
purgatorial state after death. As to the duration of either of 
these eternal states, the Scriptures give no limit ; but, rather, 
there is in their language much ground for the opinion, which 
some have not hesitated to express, that eternity is a term 
descriptive of a state, an epoch, or a dispensation, rather than 
of duration, or any other idea that has reference to time. 

If never-ending torture is threatened for the wicked, either 
in the writings of Socrates or Scripture, this may, possibly, be 
of use as terrifying some from vice who otherwise would per- 
petrate it ; but it is a hopeless effort to attempt to prove by 
reason the excellence of such a doctrine, for it appears irrecon- 
cilable with the idea of Divine mercy, inasmuch as wecannot even 
conceive any good purpose which would be attainable by the 
ceaseless torture of the sorrowing culprit when the righteous will 
be, by the hypothesis, beyond danger of imitating his guilt, and 
the unrighteous, too, will be past the power of being benefited 
by the warning of his example , In this respect, then, we regard 
the Bible as being, at least, on a par with the belief of Socrates. 

Thus the Bible furnishes us with religious instructions and 
hopes which are, without doubt, wholly equal, if they are not 
in many respects superior to, the brightest excellences in the 
religion of Socrates. 



C. — Argument for the High Authority of Scripture from its 
having Excellences which contrast with the Faults even 
of a Socrates. 
Our investigation now forces on us the painful task of in- 
quiring after some of the observable faults in the Academic 



CF HOLY WRIT? 171 

system, and then presenting, in contrast with these, a few of 
those excellences in the religion of the Bible to which we 
have not yet drawn attention. 

In reading Plato's Kepnblie, we are surprised to find that 
all poetry would have been excluded from the idea of human 
and social perfection by that Socrates who made such frequent 
use of quotations from the poems extant in his day, and who, 
in all but the rhythm of metre, was himself a poet full of 
exquisite imaginations, and writing with the sweetest melody 
of diction. Yet, so it is, Socrates would have annihilated 
poetry in order to develope man. We take exception to this 
on two grounds : first, inasmuch as we believe poetry and its 
gentle loving ways, or its wild stirring emotions, to be as 
influential in the refinement and elevation of the human soul 
as any instrument which can be used in education. Who that 
knows Homer, or iEschylus, or Horace, or Juvenal, has not 
learned from them thoughts and truths which have come home 
to his inner man with a force unparalleled by any other, and 
which has made their lines of feeling or of wisdom to be 
engrafted as a portion of our very selves ? Expel the writ- 
ings of Chaucer, Shakspeare, Milton, Wordsworth, Coleridge, 
Tennyson, Scott, Dickens, and Thackeray, from our English 
literature, and who that has studied these writings does not 
know that we should be losing that which is an inestimable 
advantage to the populace, hardly less than to the elite ? Yet 
no poet — that is, no writer of fiction — would Socrates have 
tolerated in his model Eepublic. Let him who can imagine 
what the Bible, without its parables, without the psalms, 
without the best chapters of Isaiah, and without its other 
poetical portions, would be — let such an one say whether the 
forbidding of poets and poetry was not a grievous fault in the 
Academic system : but we take exception to this maxim of 
Socrates still farther, on the ground that it necessarily implies 
a narrow and most illiberal conception of humanity. It implies 
no less than a censorship of the press and a mutilation of man's 
faculties. God has given to his creature imagination and taste 
which are capable of delighting in the products of imagination : 
but, forsooth, we must emasculate ourselves, at least, as far as 
a taste for poetry is concerned. This is a notion surely un- 
worthy of philosophy, which teaches us that every passion, 
every affection, every faculty, and every sense, has its proper 
object ; and that, each being duly and proportionately exer- 



172 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

cised in accordance with, reason, and in subordination to con- 
science, we may delight ourselves in the gratifications alike 
of sense, and mind, and spirit, while we happily and with 
thankfulness remember that God "has given us all things 
" freely to enjoy." Here is what we regard as a fault in 
Socrates. There is no parallel to it in the Bible, where poetry 
and fiction, often of the highest class, abound; and one of 
whose generous, large-hearted maxims we have bat just 
quoted as summing up the grateful and pious decision of 
philosophy's broad mind. 

Another fault we grieve to find in the good old Socrates is 
that — whatever may have been the clear belief of his own 
intellect — however he may have seen and sometimes spoken 
of the absurdities of Polytheism till he was entangled in the 
charge of Atheism — however he may himself have adored one 
great and ever-present Deity — he yet dallied with the idolatry 
and Polytheism of his day. Not only did he allow that, for 
the multitude, there was piety in worshipping gods many and 
lords many : out the last act of his death-scene shows what a 
hold the educational prejudices of superstition still retained 
upon his mind. His last words to his friends were a charge 
that they should, on his behalf, offer the accustomed sacrifice 
of a cock to the god of medicine, Esculapius. 

Thus did Socrates fail to make a decided stand against 
Polytheism and idolatry in favour of the spiritual worship of 
one God. In comparison with this his defect, we need hardly 
remind the reader that the Bible is distinct and firm in pro- 
nouncing on the worship of the one true God as indispensable 
to virtue and to happiness. 

But it may be questioned, possibly, how far this winking at 
Polytheism was a fault in Socrates. We are clearly convinced 
on this point ourselves, but the subject is too large to be now 
discussed in detail. One set of reflections, which bears strongly 
on the decision of our own judgment, is all that we can at pre- 
sent suggest to the reader. No maxim in Ethical science is 
drawn from a larger historical induction than that, As is the 
deity of a nation, so will be the character of a nation. Let the 
popular mind entertain the notion of gods like Priapus or Aphro- 
dite, and lechery, paederasty, and general bestiality are sure to 
characterize the multitudes who worship at such shrines. Let 
Wodin be a god in the estimation of any people, and his devo- 
tees will not fail to be cruel and bold. Now, if this maxim 



OF HOLY WRIT? 173 

hold good, all Polytheisms must have a bad moral element in 
them, for no system of many gods in any religion can be found 
in which some of the deities are not believed to be mean and 
vicious. And, yet again, among the crowd of divine person- 
ages, the mind of man is confused. The suppliant is at a loss 
to know from which divinity to ask for help, or to which to 
offer thanks ; and so the religious sentiments are blunted and 
lose their freshness, their reality, and their joy. Besides, what 
may be pleasing to one deity is displeasing to another ; 
and thus even the differences between good and evil, virtue 
and vice, become necessarily obscured. Revenge is not accept- 
able in the eyes of one god, but it is dear to the heart of 
another. Whatever crime man may be drawn to by his im- 
pulse, he can find favour for it from some of the assemblage 
of heroes, saints and deities. 

This dallying with Polytheism, then, which is so strongly 
denounced in the Bible, we assert to be a grievous fault in 
Socrates. 

Another and, if possible, a still more obvious charge against 
Socrates is, that he did not teach worthy notions regarding the 
dignity of woman or the solemnity of marriage. The cold, 
passionless, almost scornful way in which, at the opening of 
his death-scene in the Phgedo, he dismisses his wife from his 
companionship and, as it appears, from his confidence,* 
before he begins to teach and solace his male associates, is in 
marked contrast with the manner in which Jesus, agonizing 
in the torture of the cross, still tenderly remembered to pro- 
vide, in the house and guardianship of the beloved disciple, a 
home for her who had been his virgin mother and his adoring 
follower. 

In the Republic, Socrates recommends such a community 
of wives and children as must degrade woman, put an end to 
the sweetest earthly happiness of domestic love, check the 
healthy growth of population by the effect of certain well- 

* Phasdo, Cebes, Krito, and several other disciples, are introduced into the 
prison-cell of Socrates. They find him there attended by his wife Xanthippe 
and his child. As these disciples enter, Xanthippe " sees them and begins to 
" cry aloud, and say such things as women, indeed, are wont to say, as, for 
" instance, Socrates, this is the last time thy friends will speak to thee, or thou 
" to them. Then Socrates looked at Krito and said, Krito, let some one lead 
Ji this woman (tauten) away to her home. And certain of Krito's attendants 
" led her away in the midst of her cries and lamentations: but Socrates sat down 
" on the couch and began to rub his leg," which he had raised and crossed upon 
the other, whilst he descanted on the absurdity of that which men call pleasure. 



174 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

known physical laws, and, in a word, bring general and deep 
demoralization into a society all whose men and women would 
be, in their earliest infancy and childhood, trained, influenced, 
and moulded by mothers who, as exchangeable wives, or rather 
as licensed concubines, could not be otherwise than despised 
and self- despising. 

It is needless to dwell on the enormous evils which every 
reflecting reader will see would flow from such an institution 
— so eccentric and so enormous that one is only amazed how 
any sane man — not to say how a philosopher like Socrates — 
could for a moment have seriously contemplated it, much less 
deliberately propounded it, as a custom for a perfect state. It is 
equally unnecessary to insist on the well-known fact that, here 
again, the Bible contrasts most favourably with the teaching 
of the Academy. The obvious instruction of Holy Writ is, 
that each man should have one wife ; that husbands and wives 
should love each other with the utmost fondness and fidelity ; 
and that, as a general rule, " young women should marry, bear 
"children, guide the household, and give none occasion for 
" reproach." So sacred is the matrimonial relationship con- 
sidered by the Bible, that it is even selected as a fit emblem 
of the union betwixt Christ and his Church. 

The last fault of the Academic teaching, which it will be 
necessary for us to notice at present, is the partiality with 
which it regarded mankind, and the indifference it manifested 
as to the propagation of the truth. This partiality is apparent 
from the kind of life which Socrates represented as most ap- 
proved by the gods ; for it was impossible that all men, or 
indeed that any very considerable number of men, should 
abandon productive labour, and give themselves up to the 
mere speculative contemplation of numbers, proportions, and 
the Academic doctrine of ideas. Yet this, as we have said, 
was what Socrates regarded as the highest condition attain- 
able by man on earth. How does this fanciful notion contrast 
with the Biblical precept, " Whosoever of you will be chiefest 
" of all, let him be the servant" (i. e. the profitable and helpful 
minister and fellow- worker) " of all" — as if it were said, if any 
man be ambitious for the highest possible human state, the 
way to satisfy his ambition is to be of the utmost use, in the 
friendliest manner, to the largest number of his most needy 
fellow-beings. As to the indifference about disseminating 
known and precious truth, of which we have accused Socrates, 



OF HOLY WRIT? 175 

there is a most striking illustration in the death-scene to which 
we have already referred so often. The transcendent opinions 
which the philosopher then promulgated took his hearers quite 
by surprise. They had listened to him for many an hour 
before, but such teaching they had never heard, even from his 
lips, ere now ; insomuch that one of the interlocutors in the 
dialogue gives utterance to his astonishment in words to the 
effect, "And were you, Socrates, about to have died without 
" imparting to us these invaluable truths, if a casual interro- 
" gatory had not elicited them from you?" Surely this 
negligence in communicating the highest truth even to the 
most intimate associates — this cold indifference to the in- 
terests of the masses — or, if it be despondency, this hopeless 
abandonment of the ignorant multitudes to the besotted course 
of their confessedly brutish ignorance and obstinate vice — 
makes a sorry appearance when set in comparison with the 
Biblical command, " Go, and tell the glad tidings of salvation 
"to all nations," for, as the Bible elsewhere asserts, "God 
" would have all men to be saved." 

Such, then, are some of the chief and, as we think, very 
important blemishes in the religious and philosophical system 
of Socrates. We charge him with an injurious and narrow- 
minded intolerance of poetry ; with a mistaken and degrading 
complaisance, if not a weak and superstitious clinging, to the 
prejudices of Polytheism ; with an unnatural disrespect of the 
female sex, combined with the most atrocious theory of co- 
habitation ; and, lastly, with listlessness as to the spread of 
truth, even among his disciples, and still more among the 
countless multitudes of his fellow-beings. These are no light 
faults or slight accusations. We make them with no un- 
friendly or irreverent feeling towards the greatest and the 
holiest of the Heathen. We make them in the interest of 
truth, and to show, not only that the teaching of Socrates had 
its very grave errors, but still more to demonstrate that the 
Bible has its peculiar teachings of religious wisdom and ex- 
cellence, which stand out in marked and prominent contrast 
when viewed in juxtaposition with the Socratic defects. 

On these grounds, then, we claim for the Bible a still higher 
degree of reverence. It has, at least, a counterpart for each 
of the characteristic excellences of the noblest ancient religion ; 
and where that best and purest of ancient religions was at 
fault, the doctrines of Holy Scripture abound in wrisdom and 



176 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

holiness . For the ancient writing, whi ch has been the handmaid, 
if not the cause, of all great improvements for centuries past 
— which alone is likely to tell us by what mysterious power 
Christus accomplished the religious revolution that Tacitus 
and Pliny ascribe to him — for that ancient writing which equals 
the greatest perfections of heathen philosophy, and soars in 
the region of purity when the brightest of other religions lies 
low in feebleness and error — for this writing we claim from 
every man, not that it should be regarded as infallible, but 
that its every statement should be received with reverence, 
and judged with searching care and humble sincerity ; yea, 
and that even its errors should be dealt with as one deals with 
a father's failings or a mother's weakness. Such is the 
authority we reasonably, and therefore hopefully, claim for 
the Bible. Let no man say that this is a mean or insuf- 
ficient authority, unless he is prepared to say likewise that all 
legal, princely, and parental authority is worthless, weak, and 
despicable, because it may be marred with error. 



D. — Argument for the Sacred Authority of the Bible from 
its Great and often unique Excellences. 

It now only remains for us to notice, cursorily, a few of the 
peculiar and, for the most part, unique excellences which dis- 
tinguish the religion of the Bible. 



Section 1. — Is it fair to point to the excellences and not to display 
the alleged faults of the Sacred Volume t 

But here some objector may take exception to our course, 
and say that, as we have paraded the special shortcomings of 
the Academy, so we ought in fairness to give conspicuous 
prominence to those questionable examples or instructions in 
the Bible of which it may be said there are not a few, like 
Abraham's readiness to slay his son, under a persuasion that 
Jehovah could be pleased with a human sacrifice ; like the 
dreadful commands to exterminate man, woman and child among 
the idolatrous Canaanites ; like the idea that Grod bore venge- 
ful malice against a generation of the Amalekites for the sins 



OF HOLY WRIT? 177 

of their forefathers apart from all consideration of their own 
moral character ; like the idea that, for David's sins, God on 
one occasion destroyed the life of an innocent babe, and at 
another time sent a plague to slay unoffending multitudes ; 
like the untruthfulness of men generally approved in Scripture, 
as were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and others ; like the 
cruelty and folly of Jephtha in supposing that sanctity could 
be given to a rash and improper vow by immolating his own 
daughter; like those horrible expressions in the Psalms, 
according to which one may rejoice in the calamities and even 
in the blood of enemies, and may be called happy for dashing- 
children against the stones of Babylon — Why, some objector 
may ask, not parade these as blemishes in the volume of Holy 
Writ, and acknowledge that there is much that should modify 
the eulogistic terms in which you speak of Scripture ? To 
such an objection we have a ready, and we hope a satisfactory, 
answer. Let it be granted that all these accusations can be 
supported, and that others like them may be too w^ell founded, 
on the way in which Scripture praises the wisdom of Solomon, 
who at one period of his life had a thousand wives and concu- 
bines ; or on the gross and offensive stories of Judah and 
Onan; or yet again, on the indelicate expressions which, 
when they occur in the public lessons of the congregation, 
most clergymen feel constrained to omit — what then ? If we 
acknowledge that all these and other similar matters look like, 
lamentable faults in Holy Writ, must we not at the same time 
see that, against every immorality or impiety, Scripture raises 
its own voice ? Does not the Bible itself teach, in some part 
or other of its own volume, and especially in the New Testa- 
ment scriptures, such pure lessons of love, usefulness, and 
piety as supply a thorough antidote against the utmost acknow- 
ledged error which may be contained in its darker pages ? 
What fault is there in the Bible, from the falsehoods or inde- 
cencies of the patriarchs, onwards through the follies of stories 
like that of Samson, down to the later imprecations of evil 
against enemies, which is not distinctly rebuked by one or 
more of the Bible's heart-affecting and holy maxims ? 

To this our supposed objector may rejoin that, After all, 
then, the Bible appears to contain contradictory principles, 
some of which are manifestly evil, whilst others are as mani- 
festly good. This, we think, is a harsher and more unkind 
statement of the case than the facts of the Bible warrant : but 



178 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

we are content, in order to strengthen our argument, to accept 
this overdrawn representation of the case. Even on the sup- 
position that there are in the Bible contradictory teachings, 
some in favour of good and some in support of evil, the first 
characteristic excellence of Holy Writ, which we are about to 
lay before the reader, is one which goes far to remove the diffi- 
culty that seems to lie in this objection. 



Section 2. — The first characteristic excellence of the Bible is its 
inculcating the practice of Eclecticism. 

In the Bible we find precepts such as these, " Prove all 
" things, hold fast that which is good;" "I speak as unto wise 
" men, judge ye what I say ;" " Whatsoever things are true, 
" whatsoever things are venerable, whatsoever things are just, 
"Avhatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, 
"whatsoever things are of good report., whatsoever things are 
" virtuous, whatsoever things are praiseworthy, think on these 
"things." And again, " Be ready always to give an answer 
" to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in 
" you." And, yet again, " Believe not every spirit, but try 
' ' the spirits whether they are of God." Now, on the strength 
of these and many other suchlike maxims in Scripture, we 
assert that one of the chief excellences and peculiarities of the 
Bible is that it inculcates the principle of general eclecticism — 
that is, of picking out all that is good, and rejecting all that 
is evil. Of course, it will be easy for theologians to brhig 
forward texts, spoken by Paul and others, when they were 
using every possible means to carry conviction on any subject 
and to persuade men's minds — texts, spoken or written under 
such circmnstances, in which authority, in common with every 
possible topic that could be made available for persuasion, is 
made use of. But, against all such attempts to assert or 
enforce teaching on authority, we put it to the thoughtful 
mind whether precepts, like those at the head of this para- 
graph, are not in their very nature paramount and supreme — 
whether there is not in the human mind such a divinely con- 
stituted nature, that the moment you appeal to man's con- 
sciousness, his inner sense of right and wrong, his own power 
of judgment, you awaken within each individual a knowledge 
that this judgment, of self and for self, is his prerogative; 



OF HOLY WRIT? 179 

inalienable, his responsibility inevitable ? Only once say, 
home to a man's heart and understanding — You are your own 
judge : Grod's vicegerent conscience is within you : Judge for 
yourself — once say this, so that a man shall hear it, and he is 
for ever afterwards God's freeman. You may,' by reason, con- 
vince his judgment, and so convert or change his views ; but 
by authority, of priest, or church, or book, you can never again 
guide his mind. Though he were a slave before, he has 
touched the English shore, and he is free, and, with his 
emancipation, he must take charge of himself. 

Scripture, as we have seen, does often tell us of this supreme 
inner power of judgment. It appeals to us as wise men, who 
can judge, and who ought to act on our own judgment in 
rejecting what is evil, though an angel should be its teacher, 
and in holding fast the good, which we approve, whencesoever 
we may have derived it, and whatsoever it may be. If there 
be any virtue or any praise in anything whatsoever — in the 
Bible, in Plato, in Confucius, anywhere — of that thing we 
should so clearly think as to learn hope, ay firmer hope, in 
Grod, from its excellence — of that thing we should so clearly 
think and judge as to be able to state the grounds of our 
judgment to any of our brothers in humanity who may deem 
it worth their while to ask us a reason for the hope which is 
in us. Thus, then, on all sides, the Bible religion teaches us 
to observe the good and the evil, in order that we may reject 
the latter and hold fast the former. In a book which teaches 
us this principle we cannot be at a loss how to deal with the 
case of one who, passing for a true prophetess, pronounces a 
treacherous murderess " blessed among women ;" and our 
casting away from us all approval of treachery and murder 
becomes the more manifestly in accordance with the general 
purport of the book itself, when we read, in many of its pages, 
such precepts as " Do no murder," " Speak the truth in 
" love," &c. 

So, too, if we had in juxtaposition, " Yea, blessed shall he 
" be that taketh thy (Babylonish) children and dasheth them 
" against the stones," and " Be not overcome of evil, but 
" overcome evil with good," we should still have no difficulty 
in knowing that it became us to keep ourselves free from the 
spirit of the former passage, and to be filled with the gentle, 
loving spirit of the latter. Or, yet once more, if in one part of 
a A'olume the evil practice of divorce were made easy and 



180 TVHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

almost attractive, the faithful soul would clearly see that a 
more golden truth was written in another part of the same 
volume, where it is prescribed, " That which God hath joined 
"together let no man put asunder." Thus, then, whatever 
else some portions of the Bible may appear to say, the irre- 
vocable word of God has gone forth, even from the shrine of 
Holy Writ, that man must patiently exercise, throughout all 
his life-long day of grace, the habit of general eclecticism, 
choosing and assimilating as part of himself whatever he finds 
of good in anything, and casting away from him whatever he 
finds of evil, even though it shine resplendent with all the 
glory of an angel of light. 

This principle of eclecticism we recognise as a true and 
necessary instruction with a view to the utmost human im- 
provement. As such it seems to us a special excellence of the 
Bible ; and by it every semblance of difficulty appears to 
vanish, which might otherwise arise from the fact that the 
different portions of the inspired, venerable, and authoritative 
book are, on the one hand, barbarous, or, on the other hand, 
wise, good, and gentle, just in accordance with the character 
of the several ages or persons whence they originated. On 
account of this principle, then, which we find in Holy Writ, 
we the more revere the Bible, and are the more prepared to 
receive its every statement with the profound respect due to 
the highest authority, until we may have diligently investi- 
gated and obediently judged each such statement. 



Section 3. — Again, the Bible teaches that God is every where 
energizing. 

Another excellence in Scripture, which leads us to enter- 
tain a high sense of the Bible's authority, is that it thoroughly 
recognises and constantly reminds us of the important truth 
that God is every where living and every where acting. 
What a check in time of temptation to know and feel that 
neither the brilliancy of light nor the clouds of darkness, 
neither the height of loftiest heaven nor the depth of pro- 
foundest hell, can for a moment conceal our most secret 
thought from the eye of God ! What an encouragement in 
every virtuous toil, to be assured that the Almighty works in 



OF HOLY WRIT ? 181 

us both to will and to do of his good pleasure ! In every 
sorrow, in every joy, in e\erj change, the Most High is with 
us every where making all things work together for good to 
them that love him, and to them whom He has called ! He 
maketh, He guardeth, He counteth the lilies, the sparrows, 
yea the very hairs of our heads ! Surely these are truths 
about God which can be felt. To this effect the Spirit doth 
bear witness with our spirits. Surely these ennobling, purify- 
ing truths about God cannot be too often or too solemnly called 
to our remembrance. It is because, from beginning to end, 
the Bible is ever reminding us how we live and move and 
have our being in God, that we are the more prepared to 
regard it as a precious book that teaches on the only well- 
grounded authority of "Choose the good and reject the evil." 



Section 4. — The Bible emphatically/ teaches that " God is Love. 1 ' 

Feom what other book but the Bible is it that we learn the 
grand mystery, which, when taught, is so simple and so per- 
ceptible a truth, that God is love ; and that if at any time He 
should appear to us otherwise than, in His very essence, love 
— if at any time He should appear to us as a jealous or a 
terrible God, or as a consuming fire — it is not because He has 
changed His nature; but because we are viewing Him through 
the various media of our different sins and our chilling sense 
of guilt. The child, whose disobedience is as yet only known 
to himself, looks at his loving parent with a vastly different 
association of ideas from those which, ere he had transgressed, 
lighted up the eye with joy as it met a father's smile. Even 
so, let man, in innocence or in the undoubting assurance of 
pardon, look at God, and he will see that his heavenly Father 
is love. If God appear to us in other guise, it is because we 
have surrounded ourselves with some hideous transparency of 
sin and guilt, and the light even of that Father's love only 
serves to bring out in more abhorrent shape and more dreadful 
colour the deformity that we have devised by our own wicked 
imaginations, and executed by our unmanly, because unholy, 
acts. Where so well as in the Bible can one learn this 
mystery of the Divine nature being love ? And, if this be so, 
should not this same Bible be to us an authority the more 
regarded and the more beloved ? 



182 WHAT IS THE J [1ST AUTHORITY 



Section 5. — The Bible teaches in the way of concrete exemplifi- 
cation rather than by the statement of abstract principles. 

Another peculiarity which augments our filial esteem for 
the Book of Books is the method by which it proposes to reclaim 
man from ignorance and vice. If the reader has ever attempted 
to make the nature and the praise of any abstract idea, such as 
truthfulness or beauty, intelligible and charming to a class of 
youngsters, or to an audience of rustics, he will quite under- 
stand why Plato's best dialogues have never fastened them- 
selves on the popular mind. Not even the eloquence of Plato's 
style could make the unlettered masses, or indeed any but 
well-trained intellects, attend to the line of thought by which 
the immortality of the human soul is logically deduced, as 
Plato represents Socrates to have deduced it, from some maxim 
about the harmonies of musical sounds. Such an argument 
is, or seems to the common sense to be, far-fetched. Lecture 
any mixed assemblage on abstract thoughts, and you will find 
how soon, by unquiet restlessness on their seats, by turning 
to gaze at each other, and by various unmistakeable signals, 
they show you that you have lost their ear, and that your 
words, however long and eloquently you may continue in your 
present flight of oratory, will neither convince nor convert 
men whose hearts and wills are not open, nor are opening, to 
your persuasions. Now the method by which the Bible pro- 
poses to convert the world is the very opposite of this abstract 
mode of address. Throughout Scripture you have narrative 
which, whether authentic or fictitious, is constantly replete 
with obvious and most useful principles. Even when the 
biblical theme is the eternity before this world's creation ; or 
the divine nature and attributes ; or the fall of man and the 
origin of mundane evil ; or the mode of the divine govern- 
ment ; or the way in which God shows that He is on loving 
terms with us, and only seeks that we should be reconciled to 
Him ; or whether predestination be touched upon ; or any 
other subject on which man's tongue and pen are so prone to 
grow abstruse and metaphysical ; rarely indeed do you find 
any approach to such wearisome disquisition in the sacred 
writings. There, almost all the teaching is given not abstractly 
but in the form of history and narrative. Beautiful appear to 









OF HOLY WRIT ? 183 

us in this light the unscientific history of creation by Elohim, 
the often absurdly ridiculed talking of the serpent, the naming 
of all things by Adam, the stories of the Deluge, and of Babel, 
and of Joseph, and so many other exquisitely wrought and 
instructive tales of the pious Jewish literature. 

But if, when regarded in this light, the parables, fables, 
dramas and histories of the Old Testament charm and instruct 
us, what shall we say to the living portraiture of the man 
Christ Jesus ? True, his historical features are only given us 
in the faintest and most sketchy outline. True, of his thirty 
or more years of life in the world but not of the world, we 
have, in the four Gospels, only a few brief and imperfect me- 
moirs. Barely have we anything approaching to a full record 
of any one sermon or conversation of our blessed Lord. Barely 
can we ascertain the connexion of circumstances in which he 
spake words, much of whose meaning would be determined, 
and could only be determined with exactness, by the peculiarity 
of the occasions which his extraordinary life was constantly 
developing. Barely can we tell the order in which the events 
of his life occurred. But little, very little of his biography 
do we possess. Multitudinous unwritten sayings of his were 
afloat in the first century, besides that one which the Book of 
the Acts of the Apostles has alone preserved, " It is more 
" blessed to give than to receive." But tradition by word of 
mouth has lost these precious sayings, or they have been so 
altered as to be wholly unrecognizable. Scant, indeed, are 
the recorded and only trustworthy memoirs of the Saviour's 
life. Yet what a character, what a soul do these few, brief 
disarranged memorials call up before the mind ! It was, we 
believe, poor Bousseau, who, having been made an unbeliever 
by being shown a caricature of Christianity, said that, if the 
Evangelists did not describe a life and character which had 
been really seen by them, their conception of Jesus was no 
less than divinely sublime. Such is the incomparably lovable 
Lord whom the Bible suggests to the imagination and the 
adoring affection of us all. If he speaks as a teacher it is, for 
the most part, in some telling reference to the living customs 
of his day, or in a clear and livery story called by us a parable, 
or in associating with the daily bread and the refreshing 
liquor, no less than with the cleansing water, such spiritual 
meanings as should, were they not deadened in rituals, for 
ever speak to us of our souls, and tell us how the inner man 



184 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

needs — what God has provided and is abundantly willing to 
bestow — purifying as by water, strengthening as by bread, 
and refreshing as by wine. Such a Lord and such an only 
Mediator the Bible sets before us for our love, for our worship, 
and for our imitation. After this it would be vain for us to tell 
of Paul, the writer of those letters on all the questions and 
difficulties which moved the minds of believers at Rome or 
Corinth, or Thessalonica or Philippi, or in the churches of Asia 
or GJ-alatia. It would be vain to speak of John's dream (Apo- 
calypse) in which he saw foreshadowed struggles between 
truth and error, sometimes seeming doubtful in their issue, but 
all finally resulting in that perfect apocalypse or manifestation 
of the sons of God, for which Paul said the very creation 
(" all the whole creation") groaned in the travail of expecta- 
tion ; which Peter could only describe as a new heaven and a 
new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness ; and which John, 
like the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, dreamed of as 
a new Jerusalem which he saw coming down from heaven. 

How graphic is all the Bible teaching. There is nothing 
abstract, dull, and wearisome about it. The sacred volume is 
fall of life and action, from Genesis to Revelation ; and, in all 
its action it has principles — eternal principles — of truth and 
goodness displayed so plainly as to be easy for every pious 
reader's observation. This, then, is another characteristic 
excellence of Holy Writ. This is what has always made the 
Bible a favourite book with the simple and the unlearned, as 
well as with the accomplished and the ingenious. This is the 
method by which the Bible worthily executes that profoundly 
wise and humane command by which, if it were the only point in 
his history which remained to us, Jesus would be gloriously dis- 
tinguished from all who taught religion or professed philosophy 
before him, for he realized the prophetic anticipation that the mul- 
titudes should hear glad tidings gladly, and he left the noble com- 
mand to all that follow him, " Speak forth the heavenly message 
" to the poor." For this, among its many characteristic excel- 
lences, we esteem the Bible greatly, and deem it worthy to be to 
us an authority. 

Section 6. — The Bible prescribes, not the Revolution of outward 
violence, but a silent and sure Reform from within outwards. 
No sane man of the most ordinary information will deny 
that, with all its supposed errors, the Bible has been a great 



OF HOLY WRIT? 185 

Reformer. Yet how comes it that, whilst every other Reformer, 
from Micaiah, the son of Imlah, downwards to Luther and 
Peel, has received a liberal share of abuse for his reforms, the 
Bible, on whatever other grounds it be assailed, is rarely — if 
indeed it ever has been — taunted with the change it effects in 
nations or in individuals ? We think that this tolerance of 
Bible reformations arises out of another peculiar excellence 
of scriptural teaching. The Bible does not come into a Popish 
country and produce revolution by ordering outward insults 
to the established usages. Even in the Old Testament there 
is a striking instance of this, in the indulgence which appears 
to have been asked and not refused to Naaman, with reference 
to accompanying his master into the temple of Nisroch. Thus 
the Sacred Scriptures do not enjoin rebellious iconoclasm in 
order to remove idolatry : neither does the Bible command 
sudden and baneful emancipation in a slaveholding country. 
Indeed, in whatever outward circumstances the Bible finds a 
man or a people whom it converts, in the same it would have 
them continue till the slave, by Christian industry, wisdom 
and thrift, can purchase his freedom ; or till, in any case, the. 
outward position and circumstances are raised and improved 
as an effect or result attending the mental and internal improve- 
ment of the individual or the multitude. In a word, the Bible, 
as a Reformer, is no revolutionist. It works on the heart and 
mind first ; and then, certainly, though gradually and in an 
orderly development, the outward carriage, the countenance, 
the whole man or the whole society is ameliorated. For this 
its power of reforming peacefully, by slowly leavening whole 
kingdoms with its loving principles, we reverence the wisdom 
of the Bible, and are prepared to respect its authority. 



Section 7. — The Bible requires from each man change of Mind, 
which shall be effective of change of Life. 

Connected with this point, of the Bible being a reformer of 
the mind and the feelings, and so, and only so, a transformer of 
the outward life, there is another consideration which strongly 
commends the wisdom of the Inspired Volume to our admira- 
tion. We allude to the fact that, with reference to the future 
judgment, as generally in order to be approved by our Creator, 
the sacred penmen do not demand certain operations to be 



IS 6 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

accomplished by man, nor a continuance for a certain period 
in the paths of duty and devotion ; but, rather, that which is 
required is, that the thoughts and affections, which had been 
in various ways and to various extents engrossed and debased 
by selfish and inferior interests, should be, once for all, trans- 
ferred to right objects and in due proportions — that God, as the 
subject best worthy of attention and of thought in the universe, 
should be first looked to, and then that all minor affairs should 
range themselves, in our estimation, after Him, and with respect 
to His good and sovereign pleasure. 

This transformation of the mind must always have its critical 
moment, which critical moment, or real period of conversion, 
can seldom be ascertainable by man : but, whenever it take 
place, this change, from loving self or the world best to loving 
God and goodness best, is that which Scripture represents as 
■ essential to being approved in the judgment. Now, let us ask 
ourselves by what other means it is conceivable that men, who 
have passed large portions of their already bygone lives in 
the errors of sinfulness, could ever hope to commend them- 
selves to the all-seeing eye in judgment? If the Bible, 
addressing itself to the hoary sinner, spoke of pardon as ob- 
tainable after ten years' improvement, he would despair, and 
go on in sin : but it tells him to believe and repent, and then 
" old things will be passed away ; behold ! all things will be 
"new." It shows him the thief, with a changed and renewed 
heart, accepted on the cross. It fills every man who still has life 
with the assurance of pardon, if he will turn and live, for "God 
" hath no pleasure in the death of him that dieth;" but, at the 
same time, it stimulates every child of man to instant exertion 
by showing him that, though the present is ours, and we can 
now change, we know nothing of the future, nor have we any 
reason for soothing ourselves with the idea that at another 
moment we shall still be alive, or, if alive, still be able, 
or then be willing, to change our hearts. Thus the Bible 
offers present pardon on the condition of actual and immediate 
change of heart. It insists not on work, of any quality, or for 
any period. Yet it relaxes not one whit of the highest claim 
for moral purity and philanthropic usefulness, for, if the heart 
be rectified, will not the actions, which are prompted by the 
heart be likewise as surely rectified ? To the oldest and most 
hardened sinner there is pardon proffered. From the youngest 
thinker there is happy service of perfect freedom demanded. 



OF HOLY WRIT ? 187 

On the one hand, the promise is, " Believe, and thou shalt be 
"saved." On the other, the warning is, "We must all give 
"account of the things done in the body." Surely, in thus 
requiring a change of mind, which may be instantaneous, and 
yet whose fruits of holiness cannot fail to follow, the Scripture 
shows that wisdom and that mercy which commend themselves 
to our conscience as Divine ; and so the Bible lays another solid 
foundation on which may be raised an additional claim to our 
reasonable veneration for its hallowed though fallible authority. 



Section 8. — The consummate knowledge of Man and of the 
World shown by the Bible Viriters. 

We are not of the number of those who believe even the 
prophetic portions of Holy Writ to be " anticipated history," 
as they have been styled. The prophecies we regard as poeti- 
cal, and, therefore, for the most part, impersonated or indi- 
vidualized statements of the moral principles on which the 
world is governed. If Edom is named in a prediction, we do 
not consider that Iduma?a is destined, by an inevitable fate, to 
a certain curse ; but rather we understand that Edom itself, 
and every nation which, by a similar abuse of opportunities 
and by a similar practice of vice, makes itself a spiritual 
Edom, will, if it continue obstinately in the state of sin in 
which and against which it has been warned, then be over- 
thrown in some such way as that threatened in the prediction ; 
whereas, if the Edom (literal or spiritual) had repented of its 
evil practices, God would have repented him of the evil He 
had said He would do unto Edom. Thus, we do not for a 
moment entertain the groundless supposition that the Scrip- 
ture writers had an insight into the world's future history at 
all more deep than is the forecast of thought to which every 
studious and reflecting man may now attain. But, with these 
views of ours, it always appears to us wonderful how broad 
and deep was the knowledge of man's soul which the spirit of 
Christianity gave to simple and unlettered men, such as the 
writers of the New Testament evidently were. If the reader 
will reflect, it will be observable that there has hardly, if ever, 
arisen an error, in these eighteen centuries, for which there 
might not be drawn an applicable word of reproof and correc- 
tion from the treasury of Biblical wisdom. So true is this 



188 WHA.T IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

that many a thoughtful Protestant believes that in 1 Tim. iv., 
in 2 Thess. ii., and in several other passages, referring to the 
then present state of things, he sees a prophecy of the Papacy ; 
and, yet again, if we would only burst the scales of prejudice 
which dim our vision, we might see many a folly and many a 
fault of our own, the possibility of which is wholly new, re- 
buked right sharply in the ancient sayings of the Bible. It is 
on this principle that we explain the practice, resorted to by 
so 'many of our popular writers, of pointing their wit and 
sarcasm by some telling quotation of Holy Writ.* This full 
power of the Scriptures to rebuke every new fault, as it arises 
in the ages, and to correct offences that were unknown in 
Apostolic days, seems to us to betoken a profound and accu- 
rate knowledge of human nature, as well as of the eternal 
principles of right and wrong; and, on this proof of the Bible's 
wisdom, we ground a fresh claim for reverential though in- 
telligent submission to Scripture as an authority. 



Section 9. — The Bible teaches the universal Brotherhood of Man. 

We have already noticed that the great and holy Socrates, 
as represented to us in the Eepublic of Plato, was in favour of 
a community of wives. His main object, in this curious freak, 
was that the children of the Eepublic might be common, that 
they might regard all middle-aged citizens as their fathers 
and mothers, the elders as their grandparents, and those of a 
like age with themselves as their brothers and sisters. Now, 
the good which Socrates thus, by an enormous and shocking 
eccentricity, wished to secure to the members of his model 
state, the Bible provides, as far as teaching and institution can 
provide it, for all the children of men. Scripture tells us that 
they, whose national antipathies are as old and as bitter as 
the feeling between the Jew and the Samaritan, are still 
neighbours, who should love each other as they love self: 
and, again, the Holy Volume tells us that God hath made of 
one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on the face of the 
earth ; it traces our common origin to one original couple, and 

* Any man who reads the leading articles of the Times can hardly fail to be 
struck with the forcible applications of Scripture which, in those masterpieces of 
composition, are made to bite the new and ephemeral follies or vices of our age. 



OF HOL? WRIT ? 189 

it enforces the duty of love, benevolence, and helpfulness to 
one another, on this very consideration. In short, it bases on 
our history, as traced to a common origin, and on our universal 
relation to the Creator, Eedeemer, and Sanctifier, just such a 
bond of union and affection as Socrates longed for in his Re- 
public ; and not a little remarkable is it to find the very terms 
of the philosopher's wish realized in the Biblical precept, 
''Entreat an elder as a father; the younger men as brothers ; 
" the elder women as mothers ; the younger as sisters with all 
" purity." Thus, when the Bible spirit is imbibed by the 
world, and when the injunctions of Holy Writ are obeyed, war 
and enmity will cease, and the common brotherhood of man be 
recognised and established. It is because the Bible points to 
this blessed goal for the human race — because it quickens the 
thought, the hope, the desire of this peaceful day of progress 
for the nations — that we the more revere its wisdom and the 
more respectfully receive from it every other maxim which it 
charges us to obey if we approve. 



Section 10. — The Bible represents man's potentiality of good, as 
dependent on God, indeed, but also as illimitable for all men. 

In speaking on the subject of Inspiration, we have alreadv 
noticed the manner in which the Bible acknowledges every 
good and perfect gift — whether it be what we call power or 
skill or talent or cleverness or genius — as coming down from 
the Father of lights and being wrought in us by the Spirit of 
God who giveth to every man severally as He will. We must 
not pass without attention one Biblical excellence, connected 
with this point, which we hold to be of inestimable advan- 
tage. In thus teaching that every good thing comes to man 
by the Inspiration of one who giveth wisdom, and all else that 
is truly good, liberally and without upbraiding, it is clear that 
the Bible makes man's power of attaining to excellence de- 
pendent on God, indeed, but at the same time wholly unlimited, 
so that it is with reason that the same book elsewhere bids us 
aspire to be perfect as our heavenly Father, and assures us 
that we may and ought to escape from corruption, and become 
partakers of the divine nature. But is this high and attainable 
perfection so dependent on God's bestowal that man must rest 
until the Deity confers on him some new boon? No such 



100 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

thing. Some advantages {i. e. some signs of the Spirit's 
having been with us, for without the Spirit the common hypo- 
thesis of all Christians is that there can be no good thing) are 
already possessed by all. Use we those advantages which 
have been given, and more shall be given us. But may we 
omit to use such efforts after improvement as are within our 
reach because God's wont is to give more grace? Far from 
it. The Spirit only worketh with us ; and by no means does 
Scripture represent Him as acting upon us as if we were un- 
conscious agents who had no choice but to yield to the Spirit's 
unsought impulses. So far is this listless, unintelligent and irre- 
sponsible theory of Inspiration from being countenanced by Holy 
Writ, that the sacred volume solemnly reminds us that the spirits 
of the prophets are subject to the prophets. Thus, then, we 
find, in the scriptural teaching relative to the Holy Spirit's 
aid, these peculiarities : — viz., the assertion of man's illimitable 
potentiality of development fn the direction of virtue ; the doc- 
trine of man's being required to exert himself for the acquiring 
that Spirit which he shall surely find if he seek it, and re- 
ceive if he ask; and, moreover, the recognition of man's power 
and responsibility in using the influences even of the Holy 
Spirit of God. There are other noticeable characteristics in 
the scriptural doctrine of the Spirit, such as the inculcation 
of an appropriate and wise humility in the employment of 
whatever grace has been freely given to us : but we take our 
stand, for the present, on those excellences which we have 
named, and we put it to the reader whether the book which 
can speak with such surpassing wisdom on a theme so apt to 
bewilder and to mislead as the doctrine of spiritual intervention 
and assistance, is not worthy to be received as a high and 
reverend authority in the study of every reflective man ? 



Section 11. — The Bible handles, with singular Wisdom, tie 
difficult subject of Prayer. 

On the subject of Prayer, how likely is even a wise man to 
be misled. In one extreme there lies the so-called philosophic 
notion which believes that, as all the present and the future 
are fore-known and fore-ordained by God, so no entreaty can 
change the succession and inter- dependency of cause and effect, 
and so all prayer must be a vanity. In the other extreme we 



OF HOLY WRIT? 191 

find the vulgar and pernicious error which supposes that sup- 
plications, without prudence, will get a man a good wife ; or 
prayer, without industry, will insure success ; or prayer, 
without study, will bring knowledge ; or prayer, without the 
right medical treatment, will accomplish cures ; or, in a word, 
that urgent entreaties at the throne of grace may be substi- 
tuted for the diligent employment of the several means proper 
for effecting each desired end. Between these sceptical and 
superstitious extremes there lie manifold modifications and 
combinations of error : and we are far from saying that no 
error on this subject can find at least a plausible excuse for 
itself in some parts of the Bible : but we assert, without fear 
of contradiction, that he who reads the sacred volume with a 
recollection and a practice of its own prescribed principle of 
Eclecticism, will find such instruction with reference to prayer 
as the following. With God there is no changeableness nor 
shadow of turning. If He seem to repent him of what he had 
said he would do, it is not He who is changed, but we who 
are now looking at him from one moral attitude, whereas we 
were previously regarding the same unchangeable Being from 
another and a wholly different moral position. Such being 
the nature of God, prayer cannot change him. But the first 
scriptural element in prayer is fervent desire, the sentiment 
which lives in the dialogue, " What wouldst thou have me to 
" do unto thee ? Lord, that I might receive my sight I" Now 
fervent desire, so earnestly entertained that we go to speak 
with God about it constantly and perseveringly, as did the 
widow in the parable of the unjust judge, will not change 
God ; but it will to a certainty change us and our moral position. 
Intelligent fulness of statement, without foolish repetition, 
is another scriptural element in prayer. How good is it, when 
the wishes are running impetuously after some thing which is 
thought desirable, to pause for a little moment and state to 
oneself, especially in writing, what it is one wishes ! How often 
does such a statement disclose to our view the folly and the 
mischief which were latent in our wish, and which would have 
been realized to our harm with our wish, if we had not by 
statement discovered the evil in time to abandon or modify 
our desire. Such a calm, self-discovering statement is indis- 
pensable to a scriptural prayer ; but, with this further benefit 
attaching to it, namely, that the Bible teaches us how God 
Iieareth prayer, and how the same Holy Spirit, who without 



192 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

measure breathed through Jesu's patience andpain and struggle 
and victory, does consult and deliberate with and counsel our 
spirits when, with fervent desire, and with that other scriptural 
element of prayer, holy reliance on the love and power of God, 
we go to state solemnly our wishes at the throne of grace, and 
to seek there for wisdom in selecting and employing means for 
the accomplishment of such wishes as we retain when we 
return from taking counsel with the Lord. 

In this Biblically taught mode of prayer there is no cold 
scepticism which abandons prayer as useless, nor any weak 
superstition which strives in vain to change the will of the 
All- wise, and break the indissoluble chain which links effect 
to cause. But, rather, in this manner of praying there is a 
pious and beautiful reliance on God, leading us to such a 
mental exercise as cannot fail to clear up our views, give 
definiteness to our aim, wisdom to our selection of means, and 
increased strength to our arm for action. Thus we see a deep 
and most intelligible truth in those words, which have been a 
stumbling-block to not a few, "Whatsoever ye shall ask in faith 
"believing, that ye shall receive :" for assuredly, though God 
remain unchangeable, yet such prayer as we have spoken of 
cleanses the heart of all impossible, improper and immoderate 
wishes, gives to the judgment clearness in selecting means 
and, by ever strengthening us in our wise and persevering 
exertions, doth change us and bring about, with the Divine 
blessing, the accomplishment of its own petitions. We know 
no other book, save the Bible, which has originated for man 
the knowledge of such wise and profitable elements in prayer ; 
and for this, in addition to its many other boons, we honour 
the Bible as the highest fallible authority on earth. 



Section 12. — The Bible teaching as regards Spiritual Communion 
with God. 
There is one more, and only one more, of the innumerable 
excellences in Scripture to which we would draw the reader's 
attention. Not only does the Bible teach us that God is every 
where present and every where active, but it reveals to us a 
mystery that, if at all known, was by no means commonly 
disclosed to man until the Bible and that religion, of whose 
trustworthy contemporary records Scripture alone remains to 






OF HOLY WRIT? 193 

us, declared it to mankind. The heathens were of old, and 
still are, wont to imagine that man must go to some temple, 
or possess himself of some privileged charm, in order to hold 
communion with the Deity. The Bible teaches us that such a 
communion with the Highest and the Holiest, who is love, is, 
in God's mercy, placed within the reach of every man, at every 
time, if he will only seek it with that disposition of heart and 
mind which is designated in Scripture as " worship in spirit 
" and in truth." It is needless to argue in proof that a 
man's chosen and habitual companions affect his character. 
It is needless to prove by verbal statement that wise and 
loving associates are an inexpressible gain to man. They 
augment our enjoyment in time of prosperity. They solace 
our woe. They stimulate our good exertions. They counsel 
us in the way of wisdom when we are entangled amidst 
doubts and difficulties. " Ointment and perfume rejoice the 
" heart ; so doth the sweetness of a man's friend by hearty 
" counsel." " Iron sharpeneth iron ; so a man sharpeneth 
" the countenance of his friend."* 

If these things be so, what must be the effect on man's 
character of habitual heart-intercourse with the God whose 
handiwork is seen in every creature, and whose " goodness 
" reacheth to the clouds." 

What must be the effect of constantly recurring spiritual 
communion with the Allwise and the Allholy, who manifested 
his benevolence in the life and death, and showed his power in 
the resurrection of Jesus ? Great already has been the effect — 
in sanctifying and elevating the life of the slave and of the 
prince, in solemnizing and yet freeing from all terror that 
death-scene which awaits each one of us, and in which we are 
to pass into the very seen presence of our God — great has 
been the effect of habitual and ever accessible spiritual com- 
munion with God. It has altered and ennobled the life of all 
who have availed themselves of its proffered blessings. It 
has felicitated the death of all who have learned in it to 
talk with God and to rejoice. Greater still and more world- 
embracing will this amelioration of human life and this beati- 
fying of death become as the Bible, being more closely and 
more wisely studied, shall lead ever increasing multitudes to 
walk in spiritual communion with God, and so to be prepared 

* Proverbs xxvii. 9, 17. 



194 WHAT IS THE JCST AUTHORITY 

joyfully to depart and be with Him in a better and more 
enduring world. 

It is because the Bible is the book which teaches the possi- 
bility of such communion with our heavenly Father, and 
inculcates the happy duty of practising such communion at all 
times, under all circumstances and in all places, that we the 
more revere its sacred though fallible authority. 



OF HOLY WRIT ? 195 



CHAPTER IV. 

RESUME AND CONCLUSION OF THIS BOOK CLAIMING A SACRED AUTHORITY 
FOR THE BIBLE AS A FALLIBLE BDT INSPIRED VOLUME. 

We have now suggested a few, very few, of the grounds on 
which we claim for the Bible a deeply reverent, though a 
wholly reasonable, reception at the hands of every man. If 
we look to its antiquity, it is venerable with its age of from 
two to three thousand years. If we seek for a trustworthy 
account of the origin and growth of that religion which Tacitus 
and Pliny assure us had marvellously revolutionized the 
religious ideas of the Eoman world, the Bible is pointed to on 
all sides, by the men of every age and every church, by many 
unbelievers as well as by believers, as being the only contem- 
porary document we can procure to aid us in such an interesting 
and important investigation. 

Thus much of our present Book bespeaks attention and 
respect for the Bible before the student has opened its pages, 
and independently of all which has been said with special 
reference to its inspiration or the peculiar manifestation of 
God's teaching in it by the influence which his Holy Spirit 
had on the thoughts and sentiments of the sacred penmen. To 
the same feeling of reasonable respect for the Bible are we led 
by a consideration of the way in which this book, more than 
any other, has been the constant handmaid and attendant, if 
not the possible cause, of all great modern reforms and im- 
provements. Thus, whilst the Bible is still, as to its contents, 
an unknown book to us, we are prepared to reverence it pro- 
foundly because of its antiquity, the information it can give, 
and the companionship it has held with the great and with the 
good. But when, still further, the book is opened to our 
perusal — when, studying it in no unwarrantable search after 
an infallibility that must become fallible, or incomprehensible, 
the moment it comes into contact with our finite minds — when, 
thus exploring the sacred volume, we are led to notice how 
it equals the noblest nights of man's purest and highest 



196 WHAT IS THE JUST AUTHORITY 

thoughts, as they are written for us by the most eloquent of 
the Greeks — when we observe how the Bible possesses marked 
and peculiar excellences to contrast with the faults or extrava- 
gances of a Socrates — when we recognise the fact that not 
only is Scripture replete with beauties and excellences, which 
taken, indeed, one by one and in their isolation, could not all 
be matched even if we should select for the comparison the 
choicest portions of heathen literature — and when, moreover, 
we perceive that the Bible contains beauties and excellences 
which taken in their combination, as they are found all of them 
in that one not bulky volume, constitute a wholly unparalleled 
and unique galaxy of moral and spiritual gems — when we 
thus see in the Bible, and in the Bible first, if not alone of 
books, a system of such principles as we have been noticing 
in these last pages — when we find how the Bible teaches us 
that in all things, upon trial, the evil is to be rejected and the 
good held fast — when we find the Bible maintaining the doc- 
trine of the divine presence and activity every where — teaching 
that God is really " Love," and only appears otherwise when 
seen through the medium of sin — presenting for our adoring 
imitation a Saviour who can draw the rich and the poor and 
all men unto Him — giving rise to orderly reform from within 
outwards — prescribing change of mind and heart as alone 
necessary and alone acceptable in God's sight — providing 
reproof and correction for every conceivable error — pointing 
to and insisting on the common brotherhood of mankind — 
offering to all men spiritual aid as a stimulant of effort, not 
as a substitute for exertion, or the remover of moral responsi- 
bility — teaching that Prayer is strong and thankful desire 
chastened and guided by consultation with a God on whose 
goodwill the suppliant relies — representing spiritual com- 
munion with the Heavenly Father as possible for every child 
of man at all times — when, indeed, we see these and similar 
incomparable beauties and excellences all combined in one 
ancient, interesting, profitable book, then we say that the 
man who denies the authority of this book, because it par- 
takes of human errors and frailties, is as unwise — must we 
not say as profane — as he who spurns the counsel or the 
entreaties of a sage and holy parent because he has occasion- 
ally known that parent to be in error. 

Thus we claim for the Bible no infalhbility ; but we claim 
for it a filial readiness to regard all which it teaches as likely 



OP HOLT WRIT ? 197 

to be true and wise and good. We claim for it, at the hands 
of every reader, an abstinence from all flippant and coarse 
criticism. We claim for it a diligent examination of its con- 
tents ; a scrupulous and unwilling, rather than a scornful, 
rejection of its errors ; and a thankful compliance with that 
vast majority of its principles and precepts of which every 
conscience will approve. In claiming this authority, and no 
more than this, for Holy Writ, we may seem, no doubt, to be 
asking less than is generally deemed orthodox at present ; but 
let the reader remember that there is such a thing as weaken- 
ing a good cause by over- stating it ; that there have been 
instances in which disgust and rebellion have been provoked 
by rulers unwisely laying claim to excessive and unlimited 
authority, when, by making more just and moderate claims, 
they would have established themselves in an unquestionable 
and most influential position of command. Even so we are 
convinced that it is better for the interest of Christianity, 
which is " the truth," — better, in every way, to base the high 
authority of Scripture on a consideration of that wisdom and 
excellence which reading and reflection will abundantly vindi- 
cate for the Old and New Testaments, than to rest a stupendous 
assertion of the Bible's divine authority on an idea of biblical 
infallibility which reason does not uphold, and which every 
fresh perusal of the sacred volume gives us some additional 
proof is untenable. 



BOOK V. 



BEAEING OF OTJK OPINIONS ON CHEISTIAN BELIEVEES 
AND CHEISTIAN MINISTEES. 

CHAPTER I. 

THESE VIEWS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH INTELLIGENT (SO-CALLED) 
ORTHODOXY. 

Section 1. — What, in these Remarks, belongs to the Clergy, 
applies a fortiori to the Laity. 

Our inquiries relative to the Inspiration, Infallibility, and 
Authority of the Bible are now complete, and this Essay might 
at once be concluded ; but, for the sake of any readers whose 
previous experience and whose present convictions may incline 
r — or rather it should be said, may compel — them to go with 
us in our argument and in our conclusion, we have, by the 
kind urgency of friends with whom we have discussed the 
subject of this Essay, been induced to add a few words with 
reference to the bearing of our views on the members of 
Christian communions in general, and on the clergy, or teachers 
of such communions, especially. In doing this we shall address 
our observations to the clergy, as it is obvious that their posi- 
tion would be the more difficult and the more unhappy in the 
event of their supposing that their Christian faith was shaken 
or unsound. Whatever is thus addressed to the ministers 
cannot but apply with still greater force to the lay members 
of Christian communities. 



BEARING OF OUR OPINIONS, ETC. 199 



Section 2. — One holding our views on Inspiration may well 
believe in the Trinity. 

At the outset it is clear that a man's belief in God, in Christ, 
and in the Holy Ghost is not rendered impossible by his re- 
garding the sacred volume as fallible, replete with the spirit 
of goodness, and generally authoritative, instead of regarding 
it as infallible. A man may believe Scripture to be fallible, 
and yet he may — as we ourselves do — believe Jesus to be the 
anointed Son of God who came into the world and lived and 
died and rose again in order that we might learn through him 
to trust and love God our heavenly Father, and so loving and 
trusting him might be and be accounted righteous. One may 
be assured that there are errors in Holy Writ and yet may be- 
lieve — as we do, and as all pious Jews and Christians have 
done — that man can do nothing, either physical, intellectual, 
or spiritual, without the aid and upholding grace of the Holy 
Ghost. A man may see contradictions and discrepancies in 
the Bible : he may even deem the alleged prophetical evidence 
of the miraculous conception to be of no value whatever, and 
the historical evidence of the same fact to be quite insufficient 
for its support; and yet he may — as we ourselves do — believe 
the miracle of Mary's virgin conception, simply because it is 
no more difficult than any other miracle, because it was mani- 
festly believed by the early Christians, and, especially, because 
it is in keeping with the great and startling fact that God did 
wondrously send forth Jesus to be a unique Son of Man, to 
constitute the greatest epoch in the world's history, and to be 
in effect the second father and founder of our race. That He, 
who was thus exceptionally a man, should be exceptionally 
introduced into the world, and should again exceptionally rise 
frora the grave and leave the world — these unique and excep- 
tional facts, of which one, at least, namely, the moral change 
effected by Jesus, is undeniable — seem to us to be in perfect 
harmony and keeping with each other, and one of them not 
more difficult to reconcile with ordinary experience than an- 
other ; and, therefore, we reverentially and thankfully believe 
them all as instances and manifestations of God's infinite and 
fatherly love for us and all his creatures. We believe these 
grand and Christianly consistent points, whilst we gravely, 



200 BEARING OF OUR OPINIONS 

though humbly, think it possible for a good Christian to doubt 
whether the evangelists were not misled by their own angry 
recollections, or by the error of such traditions as Luke tells 
us he followed, when — of Him, who said " Bless and curse 
" not," and of whom it is recorded that He reviled not even 
when He was reviled, and, again, that he gently prayed for 
his crucifiers, " Father, forgive them, for they know not what 
" they do" — when of Him they say that he blasted a fig-tree 
with his curse, because, as is specially recorded, it had no figs 
on it when "the time of figs was not yet" (vide Mark xi. 13) — 
when of our blessed Lord they say that he caused swine to be 
needlessly and uselessly destroyed in thousands, that He upset 
the tables of the money-changers and drove men out of the 
precincts of the temple with a scourge, and that He designated 
the rulers of his country "foxes," "hypocrites," and a "gene- 
" ration of vipers." 



Section 3. — To believe the morally contradictory as impossible as 
to believe the physically contradictory. 

Surely there is no impiety, nor any disregard of, nor oppo- 
sition to, the glad tidings of Jesus, in thus disbelieving what 
does not commend itself to a man's most anxious judgment in 
reason, to his most careful exercise of conscience, or to his 
firmest belief of the general evangelical portraiture of Jesus. 
Protestants do not excommunicate Luther, or Calvin, or others, 
the fathers of the German or the Swiss reformation, for such 
lax views about the Canon as it is notorious they entertained. 
If those men might reject whole books as "letters of straw" 
(so Luther called James' Epistle), and yet be deemed good 
Christians, must we be forbidden to style those Christ's dis- 
ciples, and brothers of all who believe in Him, who, while 
they love the dear old words and notions of all the Bible, yet 
feel constrained to deny the authority of such portions of Holy 
Writ as do not approve themselves to Christian consciousness 
— that is, to the best and purest knowledge which the teaching 
of Christ has made to become a part of these men's very selves ? 
The idea is too preposterous to be entertained for a moment. 
Any man might as well be called a disbeliever of Christianity 
or of the Bible because it is impossible for him to believe that 



ON CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS AND MINISTERS. 201 

Paul's companions, on his famous journey to Damascus, both 
did hear the voice (Acts ix. 7) and did not hear the voice 
(Acts xxii. 9), both saw and did not see. To call men un- 
believers, because they cannot credit what, in' their judgment, 
is a moral contradiction of the Bible's own glorious description 
of Jesus, is as wise and as charitable as to defame a man for 
not being able to assent, at one time, to any two contradictory 
assertions. 

Let us, who believe the Bible to be fallible, inspired, and 
authoritative, be tried by any New Testament principle, and 
it will be found that we believe all that ever was required to 
be believed by Paul, or Philip, or any other teacher whose 
mode of procedure in admitting men to church membership is 
made known to us in Scripture. Thus, then, we are clearly 
entitled to enrol ourselves, and to be recognised in the number 
of those who profess and call themselves Christians, or who, 
in other words, constitute the universal church of Christ, 



202 BEARING OF OUR OPINIONS 



CHAPTER II. 

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MINISTERS OF ANY 
DENOMINATION. 

But next arises the question whether those, who deny the 
infallibility of Scripture, and yet acknowledge its inspiration 
and authority, can and should remain in the ministries of the 
several churches. It is quite impossible that we should argue 
out this question with reference to each individual community 
even of English Christians ; but we shall perhaps do enough 
to meet the wishes of all readers if we offer two general con- 
siderations that apply to the ministers of all sects alike, and if 
we then lay down a few observations with special reference to 
that section of Christ's church with which we are ourselves 
connected, and which is by law established in this realm of 
England. 



A. WE DO NOT DENY THE INSPIRATION OF THE BlBLE. 

Our first general observation is, that, so far from denying 
the Inspiration of the Bible, we strenuously assert that Inspi- 
ration; and our attempt is to vindicate for the term "Scriptural 
" Inspiration' ' its real meaning, in order that we may both 
preserve the general historical credibility of Holy Writ and 
also raise the popular idea of Inspiration, away from its present 
untenable notion of infallibility, high above the conception 
which often confounds " divine inspiration" with " genius," if 
not with " cleverness." Thus, then, if any minister feels 
himself constrained to agree with us that the Bible, though 
inspired and of great authority, is not infallible ; and if he feels, 
also, that the formularies of his church, to which he has 
pledged his assent, either imply or assert the doctrine of the 
Bible's Inspiration, such a minister need be in no alarm. He 
has only, with prudence and fidelity, to teach a truer and 



ON CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS AND MINISTERS. 203 

better doctrine of biblical inspiration than he before knew or 
dared to entertain, in the same manner as he is surely accus- 
tomed to teach every other doctrine better and more clearly in 
proportion as his own views of it are enlarged and corrected 
by reading and by reflection. This remark is, we think, suf- 
ficient to satisfy most cases ; but, if there be any reader who, 
while he agrees with our view of Inspiration and Infallibility, 
is pained by a consciousness that the formularies of his church 
either explicitly declare or otherwise imply the irrfallibility of 
Scripture, in such a case our second general observation may 
be worthy of attention. 



B. — Jesus would not Dissent, though he Differed. 

It is a truth full, as we think, of importance, yet seldom, if 
ever, noticed, that although the Jews expunged from their 
synagogue one, at least, of Christ's disciples merely. because he 
glorified the Lord, by whom his sight had been miraculously 
restored to him ; and, although we are distinctly told that 
Jesus knew and noticed this excommunication, yet He never 
felt it necessary to sever himself or dissent from the esta- 
blished, but no longer divinely required, Judaism of his day ; 
and yet, moreover, never, except in cases of the most stubborn 
obstinacy or the direst necessity, did the Apostles, as far as 
the Bible informs us, think it right to separate themselves and 
formally dissent from the Jewish church. In the good provi- 
dence of God, the Jews never seem to have ventured on ex- 
communicating Jesus, though they dared to kill him. To the 
last He taught publicly in the temple and in the synagogues. 
He knew well how widely his principles differed from those 
which had the sanction of the rulers in that church with which 
He worshipped, and in whose religious festivals He bore a 
part. He knew that his principles, which were questioned by 
the priests, had the authority of truth, whilst many of their 
principles and practices bore the stamp of error, not to say of 
guilt. Yet, as long as Judaism would bear him or his fol- 
lowers, it was his divine wish that neither they nor He should 
sever themselves from the community in which they had been 
born and educated. The conservative and the reforming 
elements were both strong in our Saviour's mind. He would 
have every society get rid of its faults and develop its ideal in 
new improvements ; but He would have such amelioration to 



204 BEARING OF OUR OPINIONS 

proceed from within the society itself, of its own free choice 
and deliberate action. He would have every man work out 
his best and most reforming thoughts, but He would have the 
man continue in his calling, and so improve himself and his 
coadjutors. He looked on truth, to the knowledge of which a 
man is brought, as leaven put within that man by the Heavenly 
Father, that it might leaven first the man himself, then his im- 
mediate circle of acquaintance, and last, not least, the whole 
brotherhood of mankind. Thus it appears that our Lord's 
plan was to develop the true germs of Judaism into the per- 
fection of Christianity, and, by the truth of Christianity, to 
enable Judaism to cast away its errors. He had no design to 
abolish one religion and set up another in its stead, but He 
would strengthen and elevate the one by the engrafting of the 
other. He had no desire to promote rivalry between the two 
systems which, since our Lord's day, have ranged themselves 
as antagonists under the several banners of Moses and of Jesus. 

Now, if Christ is to be our example and our teacher, should 
we not obey and imitate Him in this ? Should we not, as 
ministers and teachers, be content to abide in our several high 
vocations as long as they who bear the rule will allow us ? 
If they expel us for teaching what we conceive to be important 
truth, and what, therefore, we are bound not to suppress, let 
the responsibility of so tearing themselves away from some of 
the members of Christ's mystical body — the sin of such schism 
— let it rest with them and not with us. 

On this ground, then, we would, on the one hand, urge 
every man to look well to it that he do not allow vanity, or 
eccentricity, or mere love of change, to seduce him into em- 
bracing — still less into promulgating — any new opinions which 
he has not solemnly and conscientiously examined, and which, 
if promulgated, would require the faithful rulers of his church 
to expel him ; and, on the other hand, we would entreat no 
man lightly to sever himself from the ministry to which he 
has been called by the providence and grace of God, and in 
which he has power and opportunity to teach improving truth, 
and so to carry on a Christ-like reformation from within. 
Brother, we would say to such an one, let the rulers expel 
thee for thy manly avowal of truth if unhappily they will ; 
but do thou remember Jesus and the Apostles, and do not 
expel thyself, and so, weakening thine own influence for good, 
increase the love- concealing multitudes of sectarianism. 



ON CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS AND MINISTERS. 205 



CHAPTER III. 

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS APPLYING TO THE CLERGY OF THE 
ESTABLISHED CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

If from these general remarks we turn to the particular case 
of the Established Church in England, it may be asked what 
portion of the law, or of her formularies, is there which we 

transgress ? 



A. — WE ARE NOT TOUCHED BY THE LAW AGAINST BLASPHEMY. 

We are aware that the English Statute Book still regards 
"blasphemy" as a punishable offence; but we are persuaded 
that not even they, who may most widely differ from the 
opinions we have expressed in these pages, can, with any 
regard for truth, charge us with having treated the Bible, or 
Christianity, or any sacred thing, lightly or irreverently. If, 
from general enactments, recourse be had to particular laws, 
we can suppose that the more or less bigoted character of the 
Act of Uniformity might bring it to the recollection of some 
who would like to repress this discussion by authority ; but, 
here, as in all other quarters, we believe and hope that the 
persecuting wish will fail to find any legal sanction of its 
desires towards us. 



B. — The Act of Uniformity condemns us not. 

Of the Act of Uniformity we may approve or disapprove. 
The assent and consent it requires — to what has been de- 
scribed as an Arminian Liturgy and a collection of Calvinistic 
Articles — we may think to be of a good or of an evil tendency 
on the morality and intelligence of our religious teachers. 
But, whatever be our opinions of this Statute, which comes to 
us from the tyrannical Stuarts, and which is still the chief test 



206 BEARING OF OUR OPINIONS 

of English orthodoxy, we have jet to learn that the Act of 
Uniformity requires we should hold the Bible to be infallible; 
or, indeed, that it requires us to hold any particular theory of 
Inspiration. It is to the Book of Common Prayer that this Act 
points, and for that book that it demands our unfeigned assent 
and consent to all the Calvinism, or Arminianism, or both, 
which any man may think is therein contained. 



C. — In the Book of Common Prayer, neither the Creeds, the 
Ordinal, the Liturgy, nor the Thirty-nine Articles are 
Opposed to us. 

Well, then, let us turn to the Book of Common Prayer. 
What do its Creeds or Articles pledge us to on the subject of 
Biblical infallibility or inspiration ? The Nicene Creed teaches 
us that the " Holy Ghost spake by the prophets." This we 
do not doubt, for we believe that the blessed Spirit, who is 
" the giver of life," speaks in every good word, and that He 
especially spoke by the mouths of the " goodly fellowship of 
"the prophets." The Articles assure us that the three Creeds 
are to be believed because " they may be proved by most 
"certain warrants of Holy Scripture" — ["firmissimis Scrip- 
"turarum testimoniis probari possunt."] To this, again, we 
heartily assent ; for whatsoever we read in Scripture we are 
prepared to receive respectfully and judge reverently ; what- 
soever can be proved by any means, drawn from any source, 
we are ready to believe ; and, above all, whatsoever can be 
proved by the most satisfactory evidence of the Scriptures, 
that we shall assuredly not be slow devoutly to believe. 

As to what are the " most certain warrants of Holy Scrip - 
"ture," the seventeenth Article does not fail to give us some 
very valuable information. By no means do its noticeable 
words tell us that every isolated verse is such a warrant ; but, 
rather, the last paragraph of the seventeenth Article implies 
that some passages are so far from being infallible, that they 
might lead us astray if we did not limit their meaning, and so 
correct them by other and truer passages. This, we say, and 
no less than this, is implied and cannot fail to be understood 
by every careful and unprejudiced reader of the following 
words in this Article — " We must receive God's promises in 



ON CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS AND MINISTERS. 207 

" such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scrip- 
" ture : and in our doings that will of God is to be followed 
"which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of 
" God." Is not this the very principle of Eclecticism for 
which we contend as a prime excellence in the Bible ? 

One more use which the Articles make of Scripture is, as a 
barrier beyond which they are not prepared to find any truth 
which is essential to Christianity. It was not probable that 
any points, which were indispensable, and without which the 
Gospel would be but a marred and incomplete religion, should 
be wholly omitted, and never so much as mentioned or re- 
ferred to by the Christians of the first century who penned the 
four Gospels, the book of the Acts, the numerous Epistles, 
and the Apocalypse. This the English Reformers felt, and 
they knew at the same time that the Romanists were adding 
to the list of alleged Christian essentials countless points 
which they drew from ecclesiastical traditions, from the de- 
cisions of councils, and from various other sources. As an 
answer to all these traditional and other supernumerary 
alleged essentials, our Reformers — believing that all the 
essentials of Christianity were contained in Holy Scripture, 
whose history reaches no later than a.d. 100 at the latest — 
wrote and agreed to the sixth Article in the words, " Holy 
" Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation ; so 
" that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved 
"thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be 
" believed as an Article of the Faith, or be thought requisite 
" or necessary to salvation." Thus to say that all the essen- 
tial articles of Christian faith are contained in the Bible is 
altogether different from saying that all statements contained 
in the Bible are essential articles of Christian faith. The for- 
mer assertion, which is put forth in the sixth Article, we 
thoroughly believe. The latter idea, which is not to be found 
in any part of the book of Common Prayer, we reject. 

Similarly, in the Twentieth and Twenty-first Articles, the 
authority of the Church and of General Councils is limited by 
that which is the true, general purport of Holy Writ, so that 
neither Church nor Council may add any thing to the list of 
essentials prescribed in Scripture ; nor yet may Church or 
Council abolish any thing, or ordain any thing contrary to the 
general* setting forth or doctrine of " God's Word written." 

* We are obviously justified in introducing this word "general" because of 
what bas been already noticed as the last paragraph of Article xvii. 



208 BEARING OF OUR OPINIONS 

Here again then the Articles by no means lay down for us 
any definite theory of Inspiration, nor do they require from us 
any belief in the Bible's infalHbility. Indeed, we may repeat, 
for it should be remembered, that this last belief is directly 
though implicitly contravened by the precept of the Seven- 
teenth Article, that men must be on their guard against being 
misled by isolated passages even of Holy Writ. If, from the 
Act of Uniformity and the Articles, we turn to the Liturgy, 
we find many references to the Holy Scriptures, mingled with 
the various devotional exercises which are prescribed for the 
worship of the Congregation. At a few of these it will be 
proper to glance for a moment. There is the well-known 
Collect, for the second Sunday in Advent, "Blessed Lord, 
" who hast caused all Holy Scriptures to be written for our 
" learning, grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, 
" mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and 
" comfort of thy Holy Word we may embrace and ever hold 
" fast the blessed hope of everlasting life which thou hast 
" given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ." 

The common understanding of tins Collect is, that God has 
caused the Bible, or the Old and New Testament volumes, to 
be written for man's benefit. This we fully believe, as we 
believe that God has caused every wise and good book, or 
part of a book, to be written for human advantage. Yea, we 
thankfully acknowledge that, inasmuch as the Bible is the 
best and holiest book — inasmuch as, to use the eloquent lan- 
guage of the great Coleridge, " in the Bible there is more that 
" finds me than I have experienced in all other books put 
u together ; and the words of the Bible find me at greater 
" depths of my being ; and whatever finds me brings with it 
" an irresistible evidence of its having proceeded from the 
"Holy Spirit" — therefore the Bible was more divinely 
" caused to be written" than any other book. In this Collect 
then, which some have thought would be a difficulty for us, 
we join heartily in that which all intend should be its mean- 
ing ; and we have, besides, a deeper and a richer signification, 
which, we add to its common meaning. 

None can join more devoutly than we wish to do in the 
beautiful supplication of the Litany that our " Good Lord may 
" deliver us from all hardness of heart and contempt of his 
" Word and Commandment." Whatever is " God's Word and 
"Commandment" we pray for grace to know and revere"as 
such : and towards that whole book which so pre-eminently 



ON CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS AND MINISTERS. 209 

contains the teaching of our heavenly Father, that it may 
without a misnomer be popularly called — as indeed it is called 
in the preface to the Common Prayer — "the pure Word of 
" God," we profess, and we strive to inculcate, the profoundest 
and most affectionate regard that is consistent with a reason- 
able examination of those Scriptures which God has given to 
us, his rational creatures, in order that we may search and try 
them, and, rejecting error, may hold fast what is good. 

We, who believe the Bible to be fallible, but inspired and 
of the highest authority, find no difficulty, but, contrariwise, 
we experience the most intense spiritual delight, in beseeching 
the Lord to endue us with the grace of his Holy Spirit, that 
we may "amend our lives according to his holy Word." In 
the exhortation to communion we find no difficulty in under- 
standing the wisdom of the advice given to him who cannot 
himself quiet the troubles of his conscience : Let him go to 
some discreet and learned Minister of God's Word and open 
his grief, in order that " by the ministry of God's holy Word 
"he may receive the benefit of absolution." Neither in these 
nor in any other portions of the Book of Common Prayer do we 
find that a conscientious remembrance of our views regarding 
inspiration causes us any difficulty in assenting to each explicit 
statement or tacit implication in which the whole Bible is called 
in one sense "the pure Word of God" as opposed to and 
esteemed far higher than every other composition, or in which 
certain portions of the Bible are in another sense called " the 
"Word of God" as expressing to us the requirements of the 
Divine WiU. 

By those indeed who, in their, as we think, mistaken jealousy 
and narrowness of spirit, wish either to compel us to an agree- 
ment with their own opinions, or else to expel us from their 
communion, it may yet further be urged that the Homilies, to 
an approval of which all Church Ministers are pledged by the 
thirty-fifth Article, so distinctly oppose, and imply a condem- 
nation of, our belief of Biblical fallibility, that they not unfre- 
quently describe the Bible as an "infallible" writing. As a 
rejoinder to this we say plainly that the thirty-fifth Article 
only asserts generally that the Homilies " contain a godly and 
*' wholesome doctrine." This, we take it, by no means pledges 
any man to assent and consent to every detail of opinion and 
argument advanced in the two books of Homilies ; and we 
fearlessly put it to the good conscience of the members of each 

p 



210 BEARING OF OUR OPINIONS 

party in the ministry whether there were not points which 
they disliked and from which they wholly dissented when they 
last carefully examined the Homilies ? For instance, let one 
who brings the Homilies to condemn our acknowledging the 
manifest and proven fallibility of the Canonical Scriptures, 
remember that, not only do the said Homilies sometimes refer 
to the Apocryphal writings under the designation of " Scrip- 
ture," but, in " the first part of the Sermon of Obedience," 
(pp. 96, 97, Oxf. edit. 1844), the Homilist urges the duty of 
orderly submission to constituted authorities on the following 
consideration : — " Let us consider," he says, " the Scriptures 
" of the Holy Ghost, which persuade and command us all obe- 
" diently to be subject, first and chiefly to the King's Majesty, 
" supreme governor over all, and the next to his honourable 
" council, and to all other noblemen, magistrates, and officers, 
" which by God's goodness be placed and ordered. For Al- 
" mighty God is the only author and provider for this fore-named 
" state and order as it is written of God in the book of the 
" Proverbs (viii. 15 17.) Also in the booh of Wisdom, we may 
" evidently learn that a King's power, authority and strength, 
" is a great benefit of God ; given of His great mercy to the 
" comfort of our great misery. For thus we read there, (Wis- 
"dom vi. 1 — 3), spoken to kings, 'Hear, ye Kings, and 
" understand ; learn, ye that be judges of the ends of the 
" earth ; give ear, ye that rule the multitudes ; for the power 
" is given you of the Lord, and the strength from the highest.' 
" Let us learn also here by the infallible and undeceivable Word 
" of God, that kings, and other supreme and higher officers, 
" are ordained of God, who is most highest ; and therefore 
" they are here taught diligently to apply and give themselves 
" to knowledge and wisdom necessary for the ordering of God's 
" people to their governance committed, or whom to govern 
" they are charged of God. And they be here also taught by 
" Almighty God, that they should acknowledge themselves to 
"have all their power and strength, not from Eome, butimme- 
" diately of God most highest.*' Thus do the Homilies speak 
of other writings, besides the canonical books of the Old and 
New Testaments, as " the Scriptures of the Holy Ghost," 
"the teaching of Almighty God," and even as "the infallible 
" and undeceivable Word of God." Will not multitudes of 
our worthy and most strongly anti- apocryphal Protestant 
brother clergymen join us in withholding " assent and consent" 



ON CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS AND MINISTERS. 211 

from this doctrine of the Homilies ? Similarly we disbelieve, 
and therefore we take permission to differ from, the teachings 
of the Homilists on the subject of Scriptural Infallibility. 
The homilists, doubtless, would condemn our opinions, regard- 
ing inspiration. We at once concede this : but the question is 
not, Do the Homilies, but does the Book of Common Prayer 
condemn our opinion? We have seen already in several 
instances that neither the Articles nor the Liturgy are opposed 
to us. If any portion of the Book of Common Prayer does 
condemn or oppose our opinions we know it not : and it is for 
those who differ from us on this subject to point out such our 
condemnation. 

We shall now conclude these observations by a reference to 
the questions which the Church of England appoints shall be 
asked of candidates for Holy Orders. In these questions there 
is frequent mention of Holy Writ ; so that here, if any where, 
one would expect the candidate for Holy Orders in the several 
degrees of the ministry to be publicly challenged as to his 
opinions regarding such very important points as Scriptural 
Inspiration and infallibility. Yet here, as before, we find not 
a syllable breathed on either of these topics ; but the future 
Deacon is asked, " Do you unfeigneclly believe all the Canoni- 
"cal Scriptures of the Old and New Testament?" The only 
answer required by the Church is, " I do believe them." This 
answer we could not only give in the sense in which it is 
given by every intelligent man : but we, with our views, 
could say moreover, "I do believe them; not merely when 
they tell me such obvious historical and philosophical truth 
as that Jesu's is the only scheme by which men can and 
must be saved or brought to true happiness in this life and 
true fitness for enjoying a future world ; but I also believe 
them, with the most humble and comfortable assurance, 
when, by the palpable evidence of errors, discrepancies and 
self-contradictions, they tell me that, although they contain 
the Word of God, they yet are themselves fallible, and, like 
the best of those who wrote them, they have this treasure 
in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be 
of God and not of man, nor yet of any book written by a 
man."* Thus can we, with a good conscience and an intel- 
ligent thoughtfulness, go along with and assent to this im- 
portant question and its answer in the Ordering of Deacons. 
* Vide 2 Corinthians iv. 7. 



212 BEARING OF OUR OPINIONS 

Nor does the query, "Will you diligently read the Scriptures 
"unto the people assembled in the Church?" cause us any 
pain except in so far as it reminds us, to our sorrow, that 
some Deacons and others seem, from their negligence in read- 
ing the blessed book, to have forgotten that they gave "I will" 
as their answer to this solemn question. 

From the candidate for the higher degrees in the English 
ministry, it is required that he should declare, in answer to 
several questions, that he believes all the essentials of Christi- 
anity are contained in the Bible ; that he will not attempt to 
describe anything as essential to Christianity which is not so 
described, explicitly or implicitly, in Scripture ; that he will 
diligently and piously study and teach the true meaning of 
Holy Writ ; and that he will be "ready, with all faithful dili- 
" gence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange 
" doctrines contrary to God's word." After what we have 
written on the subject of the 6th, 8th, 20th, and 21st Articles, 
there is obviously nothing in these questions and answers 
which has a semblance of clashing with our views of Biblical 
fallibility, except, indeed, any should think that the question 
about " driving away erroneous and strange doctrines contrary 
"to God's word" may affect us. If any reader should so 
think for a moment, let him remember that, instead of our 
Essay being " contrary to God's word," we have, throughout 
our investigations, been acting in accordance with such 
illimitable precepts of the Bible as " Search the Scriptures to 
" see if these things which are commonly reported about 
Inspirational Iiifallibility be so:" " Try all things — yea, 
even spirits and spiritual things — to see if they be of God — 
so try all things, and, having tried, hold fast that which is 
good." Thus then our doctrine is not contrary to, but in 
exact accordance with, God's word. As to whether our doc- 
trine is "strange" — if here the term denote novelty — it may 
suffice if the reader will remember how long it is since he felt 
the dreadful suspicion — which even now occasionally returns 
to haunt him — that there are errors in the Bible. If this do 
not satisfy him, let him ask any of the stanchest Christian 
believers how many years it is since they first experienced 
such misgivings, and how they succeeded in finally and satis- 
factorily dispelling the monstrous idea that an infallibly in- 
spired book has errors in it. He may safely ask this question 
of any intelligent Christian: and we are quite sure that all 



ON CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS AND MINISTERS. 213 

the answers he will get will either be -imcandid and unintel- 
ligible, or they will resolve themselves into the simple for- 
mula, " The blessed and holy book is inspired : and it is also 
" fallible." If any reader should still think that our views on 
scriptural fallibility are objectionably novel, let him (as we 
have before said, and as we again venture to advise) read 
Tholuck's brief but luminous account of the history of the 
doctrine of Inspiration, which was published in the April and 
May numbers of the Deutsche Zeitschrift in 1850, and of 
which an imperfect translation was given in the July and 
August numbers of an English periodical, called "Evangelical 
" Christendom," hi 1850.* So far we shall stand acquitted of 
" strangeness," and of being opposed to Grod's word. If, 
moreover, what has been written in these pages be, in part or 
as a whole, " erroneous," let the wise and charitable reader, 
who sees the fault, be good enough to point it out, and then 
the writer will endeavour to show, in deed and not in word 
only, how sincerely he assents to the pledge, taken from every 
priest at his ordination, to be ready with all faithful diligence 
to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines 
contrary to God's word. Meanwhile we can, with an un- 
doubting conscience, continue our own Christian ministrations ; 
and we strenuously and affectionately urge each reader to do 
likewise. 

* Publishers, Partridge and Oakey, London. 



214 BEARING OF OUR OPINIONS 



CHAPTER IV. 

GENERAL RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION. 

On the whole, then, it appears to us that there are abundant 
and most satisfactory grounds on which we claim, and may 
reasonably hope to vindicate for the Bible, the highest author- 
ity that can attach to any thing save God and God's vice- 
gerent Conscience. The reverence, which we regard as due 
to Holy Writ in consideration of the part which the Bible 
has taken in the history of the world — in consideration of the 
tendencies which are discernible in the pages of the Bible — 
and in consideration that all good things derive their excel- 
lence from the presence or influence of God's Holy Spirit, is 
of the same kind but of an incomparably higher degree than 
the submission which may be claimed from his offspring by 
a wise and loving parent. Thus, because of its goodness, 
we are convinced that the Bible is richly inspired and of 
high authority : but, at the same time, the facts, which are 
apparent on the face of the inspired writings themselves, 
altogether forbid our entertaining the idea of inspirational 
infallibility. 

In this state of the case it is observable that, on the one 
hand, no valid reason can be shown in support of the popular 
misconception regarding biblical infallibility ; whilst, on the 
other hand, its origin, growth, and prevalence may be easily 
accounted for by a remembrance of the real sanctity of the 
inspired volume, the convenience and requirements of all 
theologians in their controversies, and the credulity and 
superstition of the unlearned multitude. 

Throughout this entire volume it has been our endeavour 
to uphold the just sacredness of Scripture while we have 
striven to overthrow the idea of scriptural infallibility : and 
this we have laboured to accomplish under the avowed and 
deep conviction that the effects of this idea have been so 
banefully pernicious in numbing and deadening the faith 
of the earnest, the simple minded and the thoughtful that 
we, as lovers of the truth, are bound to oppose it and, as far 



OX CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS AND MINISTERS. 215 

as in us lies, to banish and drive it away as an erroneous 
and strange doctrine, contrary to God's Word. 

Let any, who feel this conviction, take part with us in 
pulling down that which is false and in building up the truth. 
Let all so labour with energy, with prudence, with love, and, 
if need be, even under persecution: and let this be our 
sacrifice and thankoffering to our heavenly Father for that 
He hath removed from our minds a parasitical excrescence 
which would have lessened, if it did not destroy, our spiritual 
joy and peace. Let this be our thankoffering inasmuch as 
the credibility of any or of all the sacred writings — which 
rests in the estimation of all men, on proper and peculiar 
foundations wholly apart from Inspiration — comes to our 
judgment supported by proofs which are for us the stronger 
because they will not be invalidated, but, on the contrary, 
will be confirmed, by our discovering in Holy Writ such 
inaccuracies and discrepancies as denote, in every trustworthy 
and contemporaneous history, the presence of unsophisticated 
testimony, and the absence of collusion. 

From some of us, my brethren lay and clerical — would to 
God it might be said from all — the dream of an infallible 
Book has passed as thoroughly away as ever melted from 
before the eyes of Luther the mist-cloud of an infallible Pope, 
or, as ever vanished from a man, who had learned to know 
his own heart, the notion of an infallible Self. 

If truth, like Eachel of old, has carried off the superstitious 
teraphim of our traditional, bibliolatrous belief in the Bible's 
infallibility, let us not, like Laban, waste time and energy in 
seeking to recover those vain and cumbrous idols : but, rather 
let us thank God and take courage because He who of old 
spake to the fathers by the prophets, and who in these last 
times hath spoken by His Son, hath confirmed the tidings 
of salvation to us by the testimony of those who heard the 
Lord ; so that, whatever we may have lost, we have found 
Him, who must be worshipped in spirit and in truth — who 
seeketh such to worship Him — and who hath given and doth 
fulfil, to every earnest follower, a promise of Inspiration, even 
a promise of the Spirit of truth, to dwell with us and be in 
us, the Comforter, who shall abide with us for ever. 



THE END. 






Hiiiii 









Sbi*L**M>h* 



im^Zt 'M^wf 






mmm 






!^W#r^?f 






-Ann' 



»«4w# ft * ■ - - - - 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 






Iip>^ 



ifWVwv. 



M^^»^ 



r . A ,- r 



nru": 



^rnfrh^ 






:>" *,f^*' 






flft'SOT 









^ V : . 



'mN\fP"% 












?VIi3Hl IB 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

IlllllliltllllllHllill 
10 027 261 039 3 1 






4 m 






P>M 






aS^Ss- 



